3001 Castor also asks the Court to deny with prejudice thePlaintiff's corresponding motion for Rule 23 Class Certificationof her state law claims.

The essential element of the Plaintiff's claim is that of damagesfor her and other dancers. The Plaintiff's Minimum Wage Actclaims will require a determination of the hours worked by eachdancer.

John F. Innelli, Esq., at John F. Innelli, LLC, in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania -- jinnelli@innellilaw.com -- contends that theindividual nature of the documentary evidence against thePlaintiff's claims is overwhelming. He notes that as set forth inthe Defendant 3001 Castor, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment,during the relevant time period, the dancers earned, in theaggregate, $3,322,032 directly from their patrons. He assertsthat the aggregate earnings exceeded the amount of minimum wagesby $2,663,907, or 3.8 times the hourly minimum wage.

The primary dispute -- whether the dancers performing at 3001Castor were not earning compensation in accordance with theapplicable statutory regulations -- is not capable of resolutionby class-wide proof, Mr. Innelli tells the Court.

Given the significant number of dollars above the hourly minimumwage earned by the dancers performing at 3001 Castor, it is notsurprising that only 4% of the dancers opted-in, Mr. Innelliasserts. He argues that the extremely low number of opt-insrelative to the number of potential class members weighs againstcertification.

ADJ PRODUCTS: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime-------------------------------------------------------------Luis Silva, an individual, on behalf of himself and all otherssimilarly situated v. ADJ Products, LLC, and Does 1 through 100,Case No. BC618581 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages inviolation of the California Labor Code.

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: "Dibb" Class Opt-Out Period Extended-------------------------------------------------------------In the case captioned MARGARET L. DIBB, SHAUNA OVIST, and WENDYGONDOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC.,Defendant, Case No. 14-5835 RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J.Bryan granted the plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time tosend the class notices and to reset the expiration of the opt-outperiod.

The amended deadline for Plaintiffs to send notice of this case toclass members was April 15, 2016. The amended deadline set forexpiration of the opt-out period was May 30, 2016. When thePlaintiffs mailed the notices to class members on April 15, 2016,the notices inadvertently stated the opt-out date was April 15,2016 -- the date set prior to the case amendment -- rather thanusing the amended date of May 30, 2016. Plaintiffs discoveredtheir error on April 20. Accordingly, they moved the Court for anamended case schedule to ensure that class members have at least45 days in which to exercise their right to optout of thislawsuit.

The Court also denied Defendant's motion for appointment of athird party administrator. The Defendant had sought appointmentof a new class administrator (it suggests an entity called ClassAction Administration LLC).

A full-text copy of Judge Bryan's May 2, 2016 order is availableat http://is.gd/uqyKwYfrom Leagle.com.

In 2013, Richard Chen and Florencio Pacleb filed a class actioncomplaint against Allstate Insurance Company, alleging he receivedunsolicited automated telephone calls to his cellular telephone,in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Chenalleged he received eight calls from Allstate in violation of Sec.227(b)(1)(A). Pacleb alleged he received five such calls. InPacleb's case, the automated calls asked for an individual namedFrank Arnold. Chen and Pacleb brought their claims "on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated," as members of aproposed class defined as "All persons within the United Stateswho received any telephone calls from Defendant to said person'scellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephonedialing system and such person had not previously consented toreceiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing ofthis Complaint."

In their first cause of action, for negligent violations of theTCPA, Chen and Pacleb sought for themselves and the members of theproposed class $500 in statutory damages for each violation andinjunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future. In theirsecond cause of action, for knowing or willful violations of theTCPA, they sought $1500 in statutory damages for each violationand similar injunctive relief. The plaintiffs subsequentlyabandoned their claims for knowing or willful violations of theTCPA.

In April 2013, before any motion for class certification had beenmade, Allstate made an offer of judgment to Chen and Pacleb underRule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Allstate offeredto allow judgment to be taken against it by Chen and Pacleb "ontheir individual claims in the amount of $15,000.00 and$10,000.00, respectively, together with reasonable attorneys' feesand costs that have been accrued to date.

Allstate urged the court to enter judgment of dismissal "in itsfavor and against Plaintiffs with prejudice." While the motion todismiss was pending, Chen accepted Allstate's Rule 68 offer.Pacleb did not. The district court denied Allstate's motion todismiss.

On appeal, Allstate argues that the Court should "reverse thedenial of Allstate's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matterjurisdiction and remand to the District Court to orderdisbursement of the tendered funds to Pacleb, the entry ofjudgment in favor of Pacleb and the dismissal of this action asmoot."

In his Opinion dated April 12, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/r6gEnsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Fisher held that the judgment Allstate has consented to would afford Pacleb completerelief on his individual claims for damages and injunctive relief.Even if Pacleb's individual claims were otherwise fully satisfied,he could continue to seek class certification under Pitts.

At issue are claims brought by the New York-based third partypayor health insurers (TPPs) under various state consumer fraudlaws against AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and Zeneca Inc.(AstraZeneca). The TPPs allege that AstraZeneca falsely advertisedits more expensive patented prescription drug Nexium as superiorto the less expensive generic drug Prilosec, causing the TPPs tooverpay for Nexium when generic Prilosec would have sufficed totreat their conditions.

After conducting an extensive choice of law analysis, the SuperiorCourt determined that New York law controlled the TPPs' claims.The court then held that the TPPs failed to state a claim underNew York's consumer fraud statute for failure to allege legallysufficient causation. According to the Superior Court, aphysician's expertise in prescribing drugs for a patient'scondition broke the causation chain between the advertising andthe injury. The Superior Court denied leave to amend and dismissedthe action with prejudice.

On appeal, the TPPs claim that Delaware law, not New York law,should govern their claims because Delaware has a closerconnection to the claims. They also argued that the SuperiorCourt erred in its causation analysis because the physician'sdecision to prescribe the higher-priced Nexium based on theallegedly false advertising, when lower-priced Prilosec supposedlywould do, directly injured them by forcing them to pay higherprescription drug costs.

In the Decision dated April 12, 2016, available athttp://is.gd/jIV7UBfrom Leagle.com, Justice Seitz found that either state consumer fraud statute the TPPs cannot recoverdamages as a matter of law. Before recovering damages, bothstatutes require that the TPPs must be a victim of, or be injuredby reason of or as a result of the allegedly false advertising.The TPPs cannot meet this standard of causation because any injurythey suffered was self-inflicted.

BAKERY EXPRESS: Recalls 7-Eleven Fresh Cookies Due to Peanuts-------------------------------------------------------------Bakery Express of Central FL., Inc. of Orlando, Florida isrecalling select 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO cookies, because they maycontain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or severesensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threateningallergic reaction if they consume these products.The select 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO Cookies were distributed to 7-Eleven convenience stores in the state of Florida.

The recall was initiated after one of our suppliers, CSM BakerySolutions, reported that three different pre-bagged dry cookie mixbases may contain undeclared peanuts. These potentiallycontaminated cookie bases were used in production and distributedin packaging that did not reveal the presence of peanuts. Thecompany and the ingredient supplier continue their investigationto determine the cause of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the above "best buy" date codes ofthe affected cookies are urged to return them to the place ofpurchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contactthe company at 1-800-255-0711 Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm EDT

On April 7, 2016, the defendants filed a motion requesting thatthe court amend its March 31, 2016 Order so as to certify forinterlocutory appeal the question of whether class actiondefendants in the Second Circuit may moot a putative class actionbefore a plaintiff has had the opportunity to file a classcertification motion by placing an amount of money sufficient tocover "all of the relief [plaintiff] could possibly obtain" in atrust account and requesting the district court to enter judgmentagainst defendants over plaintiff's objection.

A full-text copy of Judge Feuerstein's May 2, 2016 order isavailable at http://is.gd/w4I9SUfrom Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs alleges that Belk, Inc., misclassifies its SalesTeam Managers as exempt and fails to pay them overtimecompensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, inviolation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, even though STMs spendthe majority of their workdays performing non-exempt, retail clerkduties such as: cashiering; basic customer service; returns;stocking; inventory; cleaning; folding, tagging and hangingclothes; and operational/clerical duties.

Through this Motion, the Plaintiffs, who worked in at least 13different store locations in five different states, seek toprotect the rights of hundreds of STMs across the country.

Judge Puts Bimbo Bakeries Action on Hold. On March 25, 2016,Northern District of California Judge Haywood Gilliam issued anorder to show cause why plaintiffs' mislabeling action againstBimbo Bakeries should not be stayed pending resolution of thesetwo appeals. In doing so, he noted that several courts in theDistrict have stayed cases in light of the pending appeals inJones and Brazil. The parties submitted a joint statement inresponse, indicating that neither opposed the stay.

After analyzing factors courts use in considering stays, JudgeGilliam concluded that a stay was warranted. Because both partiesagreed to the stay, neither would be harmed. Most importantly,"it would be an inefficient and imprudent use of judicialresources to rule on the pending motion for class certificationwhen the Ninth Circuit may offer 'substantial guidance, if not newlaw, that will materially impact the Court's discussion in theinstant case.'" (Order at 2:10-14 (citation omitted).) The courtaccordingly stayed the entire action pending the Jones and Brazilappeals.

"Food Court" Is Quiet. Bimbo and other district court stays ofmisbranding actions have caused the Northern District, previouslydubbed the "food court," to be relatively quiet on the falseadvertising front, at least for now.

BRSB&G: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Jurado" Action Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Tyvonne T. Jurado, as an individual and on behalf of the State ofCalifornia and all Aggrieved Employees v. BRSB&G at The Grove,LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC618659 (Cal.Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants forfailure to provide proper meal periods without compensation ofpremium wages set out in California Labor Code.

BRSB&G at The Grove, LLC operates a restaurant specializing inJapanese food in California and nationwide.

The Plaintiff brings Count I, the TCPA claim, on behalf of aclass, consisting (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date fouryears prior to the filing of this action, and on or before a date20 days following the filing of this action, (c) received callsfrom the Defendant on their cell phones, (d) placed using anautomated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice.

The Plaintiff brings Count II, the ICFA claim, on behalf of aclass, consisting of (a) all persons with phone numbers in theIllinois area codes (b) who, on or after a date three years priorto the filing of this action, and on or before a date 20 daysfollowing the filing of this action, (c) received calls fromdefendant on their cell phones, (d) placed using an automateddialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice.

Mr. Dolemba further requests that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.

CASCADE DESIGNS: Recalls Avalanche Rescue Probes------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withCascade Designs Inc., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntaryrecall of about 1,600 Avalanche rescue probes in the U.S. (inaddition, about 230 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stopusing this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal toresell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lock button on the probe can fail to engage and lock, causingthe probe not to function as intended. This can interfere withfinding someone buried beneath snow, posing a suffocation hazard.

This recall involves Mountain Safety Research Striker(TM) 320,Striker(TM) 240 avalanche rescue probes. The probe is divided intosix or eight sections of 18-inch aluminum shafts that lock intoplace to create a single 94-inch or 126-inch probe, depending onthe model. The probe is used by searchers to help identifysomething or someone buried by snow after an avalanche. "Striker320" is printed on the red and gray probe and "Striker 240" isprinted on the yellow and gray probe. "MSR" is printed on theshaft.

The recalled products were manufactured in Korea and sold at REIand other outdoor recreation stores nationwide and online atAmazon.com and other websites from September 2014 through January2016 for between $60 and $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled probes andcall Cascade Designs for instructions on receiving a refund orfree replacement probe.

CASHLESS PAYMENTS: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to May 17-----------------------------------------------------------------The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois made a docket entry on May 3, 2016, in the case entitledAble Home Health, LLC v. Cashless Payments, Inc., et al., Case No.1:16-cv-04461 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before theHonorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.

The minute entry states that:

-- the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and continued to May 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.;

-- the Plaintiff's motion to continue the Plaintiff's class motion is stricken as moot;

-- initial status hearing is set for May 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.;

-- at least four working days before the initial status hearing, the parties shall conduct a FRCP 26(f) conference and file a joint written Initial Status Report, not to exceed five pages in length, and file the Court's Joint Jurisdictional Status Report and deliver courtesy copies to this Court's Courtroom Deputy in Room 1908; and

-- the Court's standing orders on the Initial Status Report and Joint Jurisdictional Status Report may be obtained from Judge Der-Yeghiayan's Web page or from this Court's Courtroom Deputy.

The case was brought by restaurant delivery drivers againstDefendant Caviar, Inc. The Court previously granted a motion tocompel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual claims, held that theclass action waiver was enforceable but the California PrivateAttorneys General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab.Code, Sec. 2698 et seq.waiver was not, and ultimately ordered the parties to arbitratethe issue of the arbitrability of the PAGA claims. The Courtstayed the case pending the arbitrator's decision on the questionof whether Plaintiff's PAGA claim is arbitrable.

On March 24, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissalwith prejudice of Plaintiff's PAGA claims because they have agreedthat another Caviar courier will pursue these claims inarbitration. The parties did not ask the Court to either stay ordismiss the remainder of the case.

On March 29, 2016, the Court notified the parties that it wasinclined to dismiss the entire case with prejudice and that anyparty who objected to dismissal of the case, or objected todismissal with prejudice as opposed to without prejudice wasrequired to file a brief of no more than three pages within oneweek of the date of the Court's order explaining the reason forthe objection. No objections were received.

CAYAN LLC: Must Defend Against South Orange Chiropractic Action---------------------------------------------------------------Chief District Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Massachusetts denied Defendant's Rule12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the class action and to strike theclass action allegations in the case captioned, SOUTH ORANGECHIROPRACTIC CENTER, LLC, individually, and on behalf of allothers similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAYAN LLC d/b/a CAPITALBANKCARD, Defendant, Case No. 15-13069-PBS (D. Mass.).

Plaintiff South Orange Chiropractic Center, LLC (South Orange),received the fax from Defendant Cayan LLC, doing business asCapital Bankcard (Capital Bankcard), promoting various merchantservices. Soon afterwards, on August 3, 2015, South Orange filed aproposed class action with itself as class representative.Plaintiff immediately filed a motion to certify a class defined toinclude "all persons or entities within the United States to whomCapital Bankcard sent Junk Faxes promoting Capital Bankcard'sgoods or services at any time within four years prior to thefiling of this Complaint through the date of certification in thisaction." The complaint seeks injunctive relief and statutorydamages.

On December 18, 2015, Defendant served Plaintiff with an offer ofjudgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and astand-alone settlement offer. Defendant offered (1) to havejudgment entered against it; (2) to pay $7,500 to Plaintiff, anamount in excess of the TCPA's statutory maximum of $1,500 perunsolicited fax; (3) to pay for any costs recoverable in the case;(4) to be enjoined from using any fax machine, computer, or otherdevice to send unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of theTCPA to Plaintiff or any other entity; and (5) to preserveevidence. Defendant tendered a bank check in the amount of $7,500with its offer and asserts that its settlement offer remains open.Plaintiff has rejected Defendant's offer of judgment andsettlement offer, and has refused to accept the check Defendantoffered.

Defendant moved to dismiss and to strike class allegations arguingthat Plaintiff's individual claims are now moot and, therefore,Plaintiff can no longer serve as a class representative. OnFebruary 4, 2016, Defendant requested that it be allowed todeposit the $7,500 with the Court in the event that the bank checkthat it tendered is deemed insufficient to provide the namedplaintiff with complete relief.

In her Memorandum and Order dated April 12, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/WMcDg3from Leagle.com, Judge Saris held that even though Plaintiff's individual claims have become moot, the classaction may proceed as a case or controversy under Article III. Thenamed plaintiff no longer has the requisite "live claim" becauseDefendant has offered to deposit a check with the court, tosatisfy all of Plaintiff's individual claims, and to have thedistrict court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor.

The Clerk of Court accepts the $7,500 check Defendant hasrequested be deposited and directed the parties to confer andinform the Court whether interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Sec.1292(b) is appropriate within two weeks of the issuance of theorder.

The underlying facts in Simmons are detailed, but two holdings ofthe district court are of particular significance. First, thecourt held that Charter was entitled to summary judgment under the"safe harbor" of 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c), because Charter calledSimmons by accident (because it reasonably, though erroneously,believed that it was contacting an existing customer), and Charterhad otherwise established reasonable policies and procedures toavoid calling individuals on thedo-not-call registry.

Second, Simmons also alleged that he instructed Charter not tocall him anymore during one of the calls, but that Charter stillcalled him after making this do-not-call request. Simmons allegedthat Charter's conduct violated 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(d)(3),which requires telemarketers to record and honor a consumer'sspecific do-not-call request made to a company. The districtcourt, however, rejected this argument, noting that subsection(d)(3) only required that a telemarketer honor a do not callrequest "within a reasonable time from the date such request wasmade," not to exceed 30 days. Charter honored the plaintiff'srequest within two weeks, which the court held was reasonable as amatter of law, as it was "half the period deemed by the regulationto be the outer limits of reasonableness."

CHICAGO: Faces "Badillo" Class Suit in N. Dist. Illinois--------------------------------------------------------A class action lawsuit has been commenced against City of Chicago.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, a lawfirm, has been attempting to collect from him a loan, secured byhis home, that is insured by the Federal Housing Authority. Healso alleges that the Defendant filed a foreclosure action againsthim in DuPage County, Illinois, on February 17, 2015. He arguesthat the FHA "narrowly limits the circumstances under which adeficiency will be sought to cases where the borrower committedfraud or engaged in a 'strategic' default." According to thecomplaint, the "FHA does not authorize deficiencies where, ashere, the Plaintiff suffered a financial emergency or hardship."

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's complaint should bedismissed for failure to state a claim because it "did not make afalse or misleading representation under Section 1692e of theFDCPA in the foreclosure complaint as the foreclosure plaintiff atall relevant times retained the right to seek a personaldeficiency from Plaintiff based upon the plain language of the FHAregulations."

According to the Defendant, and the Court agrees, the fact thatthe FHA ultimately may not authorize a deficiency judgment, doesnot make the allegations in the foreclosure complaint false ormisleading.

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: "Dean" Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification----------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE DEAN, on Behalf ofHerself and all Others Similarly Situated v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVECO., Case No. Case No. 5:15-CV-00107-JGB(DTBx), notifies the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California that, onSeptember 12, 2016, she will move for an order certifying a classdefined as:

All persons in California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia who purchased Optic White on or after October 1, 2013, or who purchased Optic White Platinum on or after February 1, 2014.

COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Catheters with Beacon(R) Tip Technology-------------------------------------------------------------Cook Medical initiated a voluntary recall of 4,146,309 catheterswith Beacon(R) Tip technology. Catheters with Beacon Tiptechnology have been found to exhibit polymer degradation of thecatheter tip, resulting in tip fracture and/or separation, whichhave resulted in 30 Medical Device Reports to date.Potential adverse events that may occur as a result of catheterpolymer degradation could include loss of device function,separation of a device segment leading to medical intervention, orcomplications resulting from a separated segment. Suchcomplications include device fragments in the vascular system,genitourinary system, or other soft tissues. Fragments within thevascular system could result in embolization to the heart orlungs, or occluding blood flow to end organs.

Cook Medical has notified its customers and distributors by recallnotification letters. The letters requested that all customers anddistributors quarantine and discontinue use of all potentiallyaffected units and return the affected product to Cook as soon aspossible for credit.

Catheters with Beacon Tip technology are intended for use byphysicians who are trained and experienced in each of theprocedures for which these devices are indicated for use.

Product Family Intended Use -------------- ------------ Beacon(R) Tip Torcon The catheters are intended for use in NB(R) Advantage Catheter the peripheral and coronary vascular system including the carotid arteries in angiographic procedures by physicians trained and experienced in angiographic techniques. Standard techniques for placement of vascular access sheaths, angiographic catheters and wire guides should be employed.

Shuttle(R) Select The catheters are intended for use Slip-Cath in angiographic procedures by Slip-Cath(R) Beacon(R) physicians trained and experienced in Tip Catheter angiographic techniques.

FluoroSet(R) Used for instillation of contrast Radiographic Tubal media into the uterine cavity for Assessment Set radiographic evaluation of the uterine cavity and for injection of appropriate contrast media into the fallopian tubes for evaluation of tubal patency.

Selective Salpingography Used for injection of contrast medium Catheter with Beacon(R) into the fallopian tube(s) for Tip selective salpingography.

Transluminal Biliary Intended for access to and biopsy of Biopsy Forceps Set tissue within the biliary ductal system.

White Lumax(R) Guiding Intended for the delivery of Coaxial Catheter angioplasty balloons and other types of interventional devices.

This recall includes all lots of catheters with the Beacon(R) Tiptechnology. A full product listing is attached. Products can beidentified by the part number on the outer package of the productlabel. Products in this recall were distributed globally.Cook Medical identified an increase in reports of polymerdegradation of the catheter tip, resulting in tip fracture and/orseparation. The preliminary investigation into this matter hasidentified that environmental conditions, such as storagetemperature, humidity, the use of Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide(VHP) for whole-room decontamination within healthcare facilities,may be contributing to the occurrence. Cook Medical recognizesthat there may be other undetermined contributors to this issueand will continue to investigate.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies around the world have beennotified of this action.

Consumers with medical questions or concerns should contact CookMedical Customer Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235,Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Easterntime. For information regarding the recall, please contactStericycle Expert Solutions at 1-866-201-9067.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use ofthis product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse EventReporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.Complete and submit the report online atwww.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm or via regular mail or fax.Download the form at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, and then complete andreturn to the address on the preaddressed form, or submit by faxto 1-800-FDA-0178. Adverse events may also be reported to CookMedical Customer Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235,Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Easterntime or by email at CustomerRelationsNA@cookmedical.com.

The lawsuit is brought individually and on behalf of othersimilarly-situated current and former exempt classified mortgageorigination employees, including Loan Officers employed byCornerstone Home Lending, Inc.

Ms. Bingham brings this collective action to recover unpaidovertime wages pursuant to the FLSA because the Defendantallegedly uniformly misclassifies its mortgage originationemployees, including Loan Officers as exempt from overtime. Shestates that the Defendant employed her as a LO to sell itsmortgage products and services in its office in the Scottsdale,Arizona area.

COSTCO: Faces Class Action Over Organic Berry Cherry Blend----------------------------------------------------------Siskinds LLP on April 28 disclosed that it has launched a classaction regarding the recall of Nature's Touch Organic Berry CherryBlend due to possible contamination with Hepatitis A.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has issued various publicwarnings that certain bags of Nature's Touch Organic Berry CherryBlend sold exclusively at Costco warehouse locations in Ontario,Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labradormay be contaminated with Hepatitis A. The Canadian FoodInspection Agency states that there have been reported illnessesassociated with the consumption of this product. Furtherinformation about the recall is available on the Canadian FoodInspection Agency website: www.inspection.gc.ca

Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that Nature's Touchnegligently produced the Organic Berry Cherry Blend, which wasnegligently distributed by Costco and seeks to recover on behalfof purchasers of those products and their family members.Siskinds LLP acts in a proposed class action for Canadians seekingcompensation for physical injury, medical expenses, lost wages oremployment income, and a refund for the cost of purchasing therecalled product. Siskinds LLP continues to investigate the case.

Elizabeth deBoer - elizabeth.deboer@siskinds.com -- a lawyer withSiskinds LLP, describes the purpose of the proceeding: "Canadianconsumers have a right to trust that the food they purchase is ofthe quality and standard they expect, such that it is safe forconsumption and will not pose a health risk. This lawsuit seeksto protect that right."

Siskinds LLP have been counsel in many product liability and otherclass actions, recovering millions of dollars for consumers.

-- granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The following class is certified:

All persons with qualified mobility disabilities who were denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any Cracker Barrel store location in the United States on the basis of disability because such persons encountered accessibility barriers due to Cracker Barrel's failure to comply with the ADA's accessible parking and path of travel requirements; and

-- appointing Sarah Heinzl as the representative Plaintiff for this Class and that the law firm of Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP is appointed as counsel for the Class.

(2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to:

All individuals employed by Defendant in its Ohio restaurants as servers, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, server trainers, banquet servers and banquet captains and other tipped employees at anytime from January 28, 2013 through and including the present; and

(3) requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs, who worked for Defendant in Ohio at any time from approximately January 28, 2013, through and including the present and until the final resolution of the case.

The Plaintiffs, who are tipped employees of Crave, allege thatthroughout their employment, Crave paid them at a reduced minimumwage rate while attempting to utilize a tip credit to satisfy itsobligation of paying the federally established minimum wage. Theyalso allege that it was also Crave's common business practice torequire its Servers to participate in an illegal tip poolmaintained and administered by the Defendant's managementemployees, in which servers were required to remit 5% of theirtotal sushi sales to nontipped employees, including a managementemployee.

CSM BAKERY: Recalls Cinnabon Stix Products Due to Peanut--------------------------------------------------------Bakery supplier, CSM Bakery Solutions, has notified Cinnabon ofthe recall of Cinnabon Stix due to the possible presence of peanutallergens in an ingredient used in Cinnabon Stix. The CinnabonStix are sold in bakery cups, bags, or boxes, and may have beendistributed to Cinnabon retail locations throughout the U.S. andinternationally.

Although the nutritional and allergen information currentlyindicates that Cinnabon products may contain milk, eggs, wheat,soy, peanuts, pecans, other tree nuts or traces of nuts, Cinnabonis taking extra measures knowing that peanut allergens have beendetected in the ingredients for the Cinnabon Stix. People who havean allergy or severe sensitivity to specific types of allergens,such as peanuts, run the risk of serious life-threatening allergicreaction if they consume these products. Cinnabon is not aware ofany complaints or illnesses at this time.

Effective immediately, all Cinnabon bakeries are discontinuing thesale of Cinnabon Stix until CSM has confirmed that the potentialsource of peanut allergens has been contained and eliminated.Anyone who has purchased Cinnabon Stix is encouraged to discardthem if there is possible exposure to anyone with a peanutallergy.

Founded in Seattle in 1985 and now based in Atlanta, Cinnabon LLC,is the market leader among cinnamon roll bakeries. The companyserves fresh, aromatic, oven-hot cinnamon rolls, as well as avariety of other baked goods and specialty beverages. Cinnabon(R)currently operates over 1,200 franchised locations worldwide,primarily in high traffic venues such as shopping malls, airports,train stations, travel plazas, entertainment centers and militaryestablishments. Cinnabon(R) is also a multi-channel licensor,partnering with other companies to provide over 70 brand licensedproducts at foodservice and retail venues. Visitwww.Cinnabon.comdisclaimer icon for more information, follow onTwitter @Cinnabon or become a Facebook fan atwww.facebook.com/Cinnabon.

No illnesses have been reported to date.The recall was initiated after it was discovered by CSM duringpost-production testing that flour containing undeclared peanut asa result of incidental contact was provided by a supplier to CSMBakery Solutions. The flour was used in products distributed byCSM in packaging that did not reveal the presence of peanut.

Consumers and wholesale customers who have purchased the productare urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.Consumers with questions may contact CSM Bakery Solutions at 1-800-241-8526 extension 4, option 3. Calls can be made to thisoffice during normal business hours (EST) during the week. Emailinquiries can be sent to CSMrecall@csmbakerysolutions.com.Consumers can also contact ACME and Jewel at 1-877-723-3929 at anytime.

D'ARCY PLACE: Former Residents to Receive Compensation------------------------------------------------------Todd McEwen, writing for Northumberland News, reports that a$36-million lawsuit was awarded to former residents who werehoused for decades in provincial hospitals where it's claimed theyexperienced widespread abuse and neglect, including at a formerCobourg facility.

The Superior Court of Justice approved the settlement on Monday,April 25. It provides individuals who suffered harm while livingat the 12 former developmental services facilities between the1960s and 1990s a chance to receive financial compensation.

One of the facilities is the former Cobourg developmentalhospital, D'Arcy Place, which operated from 1963 to 1996.

The lawsuit stated the Province of Ontario failed to properly carefor and protect the people who lived in the institutions. Thelawsuit claimed the people who lived there were emotionally,sexually, physically and psychologically traumatized by theirexperiences.

"I'm glad that we were able to reach a fair settlement in thismatter. These individuals were harmed in a place that was intendedto provide them with care, and while we cannot change the past, itis my hope that this settlement will help these individuals -- andtheir families -- to heal," Attorney General Madeleine Meilleursaid.

The lawsuit was filed by Marlene McIntyre, a former resident ofD'Arcy Place who began living there in 1963 when she was 13 yearsold. While in operation, D'Arcy Place housed thousands ofresidents who were labelled "severely developmentally challengedand delayed," the lawsuit states. Individuals were admitted toD'Arcy Place either by family members or their principalcaregivers. Once inside, the lawsuit claims, residents lost theirfree will and their lives were "dictated, controlled and providedfor" by the Province.

"Individuals at D'Arcy had virtually no control over any aspect oftheir lives," the lawsuit claims. "The opportunities to makechoices and provide any input into their daily lives wereextremely limited if not non-existent."

Ms. McIntyre claims she was repeatedly and continuously abused andpunished, which began upon her initial admission and continuedthroughout her duration at the facility.

"Residents were left to aimlessly walk or crawl around thefacilities at times, often without any clothing," according to thelawsuit, and "were organized into work gangs to perform theroutine and ordinary tasks of running such an institution."

The lawsuit alleges Ms. McIntyre was hit across the head withwooden and metal spoons, was subject to consistent, demeaningverbal abuse and her arm was broken by a staff member aspunishment. The lawsuit claims she found her life at D'Arcy"terrifying" and for many years watched as her fellow residentswere beaten and humiliated by staff members.

The lawsuit also claims the Province was well aware of theinadequate resources at D'Arcy Place following a 1971 reportsponsored by the Ministry of Health, entitled "PresentArrangements of the Care and Supervision of Mentally RetardedPersons in Ontario". The report was a scathing indictment oflarge institutions for people with mental handicaps.

The report claimed the wards were "severely overcrowded", lacked"any degree" of personal attention or privacy, a completesegregation of sexes and residents were paid "minimal andcompletely unrealistic wages" for their work, ranging from fourcents to eight cents an hour.

"This is aiming to partially close the loop on Ontario's historyof institutionalization," Jody Brown of Koskie Minsky LLP said,referring to two similar class-action lawsuits settled in the lastfew years.

The first saw about 1,075 former residents of the Huronia RegionalCentre in Orillia settle their lawsuit for $35 million in 2013,while about 1,700 former residents of the Rideau and SouthwesternRegional Centre settled for $32.7 million.

Between 1977 and 1999, the 12 facilities listed in the lawsuitclosed their doors. The government decided to shut downinstitutions and relocate adults with developmental disabilitiesto homes in their community.

"We're building a more inclusive Ontario, where people withdevelopmental disabilities can live as independently as possiblein their communities," Dr. Helena Jaczek, minister of Communityand Social Services said.

"That's why our government closed the province's last remainingfacilities and transitioned to community supports and services --a key step in our ongoing transformation of developmentalservices."

DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES: Court Wants More Evidence to Support Deal-----------------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Carlos Murguia entered an order in two lawsuits againstDeffenbaugh Industries, Inc. and Deffenbaugh Disposal, Inc.,directing that the parties may provide evidence in support oftheir supplemental submission regarding their proposed classaction settlement. The brief should be limited to 15 pages absentleave of court. Judge Murguia also directed the parties to submitthe supplemental joint brief by May 17, 2016, or seek an extensionof time.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion forpreliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement filedby the Plaintiffs. Before the Court issues its ruling, it ordersthe parties to provide joint supplemental briefing addressingcertain issues, including whether there is any alleged harm to theputative class members, who did not pay a fuel charge. The Courtnotes that it is considering breaking the putative class into twosubclasses -- one in which the members paid fuel charges, and onein which the members did not.

DL BUILDERS: "Valdovinos" Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification-------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled SEBASTIAN VALDOVINOS; JOSECARRILLO; ABELINO SOLARIO; and on behalf of themselves and thosesimilarly situated individuals v. DL BUILDERS, INC.; DAVIDHALVORSEN, Case No. 5:15-cv-O4256-RMW (N.D. Cal.), notifies theCourt that on June 3, 2016, they will move the Court for an ordercertifying the First and Second Causes of Action of the complaintfiled in the lawsuit as a collective class action under the FairLabor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are undocumented workers, who worked for DLBuilders remodeling homes and apartments. The work structure ofDL Builders divided the workers into crews with supervisorsoverseeing the crews. Each crew had a leader, who was the mostexperienced laborer on the crew, and who worked alongside theother laborers. The crew leaders were akin to a "lead" person,with no managerial authority.

In September 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against DLBuilders, Inc., and David Halvorsen, setting forth First andSecond Causes of Action for overtime, and minimum wage violationsunder the FLSA. Prior to that filing, DL Builders workers weregiven release agreements and final checks (not itemized). ThePlaintiffs did not receive a release agreement.

All persons who reside in the United States who, since January 1, 2009, obtained a rental car from a Dollar or Thrifty rental car location operated by Defendants at one of the following locations in the State of California: Los Angeles International Airport, Lindbergh Field (San Diego) International Airport, or John Wayne (Orange County) International Airport, where the location failed to post signage regarding Loss Damage Waiver ("LDW") in the manner required by Cal. Civ. Code Section 1936(g)(1), and who were charged for LDW.

Excluded from the Class are persons: (a) who incurred LDW as partof a pre-paid tour reservation or previously approved LDW as partof Dollar's membership program, (b) who made a claim withDefendants and received full coverage under the LDW provision, or(c) who received a full refund of LDW payments, with interestthereon.

The Class, which as re-defined in this Motion is intended toconform to this Court's March 8, 2016 Order, satisfies therequirements of both Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Among other things, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants havefailed to provide clear and conspicuous signage containing thelanguage mandated by Section 1936(g)(1) of the California CivilCode as to all members of the class. The required language isdesigned to allow consumers to make an informed decision regardingtheir purchase of LDW.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 21, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.,to consider the Motion.

Plaintiff Rogelio Ortega Hernandez has brought the action onbehalf of himself and other similarly situated seasonal landscapelaborers from Mexico who were employed by Earth Care, Inc. (EarthCare) from 2010 through 2014. Defendants recruited and hiredPlaintiffs pursuant to the requirements of the federal H-2B visaprogram, which permits United States employers to recruit foreignworkers to fill unskilled, non-agricultural positions when theemployer demonstrates a shortage of available American workers.Mr. Ortega alleges that Defendants failed to pay the H-2B workersthe wage rates required by the H-2B program. Defendants disputethe class allegations and deny having violated wage laws.

Very early in the litigation, the parties began settlementdiscussions and came to an agreement prior to the filing of ananswer to the complaint and prior to any certificationproceedings. After finalizing their agreement, the partiesconsented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

The proposed settlement calls for payment of any shortfall foreach worker. Although the amount of the shortfall may not be thesame for each worker, the calculation of the shortfall isidentical for each. The proposed agreement also provides for thepayment of $440 per year for each of the class members as areimbursement for travel and visa costs for each year (2013, 2014,and 2015) the worker was employed by Earth Care.

The parties filed their motion seeking court approval of theirsettlement, and have attached the agreement and associated forms.

In her Memorandum and Order dated April 13, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/1J1TsAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hey concluded that the settlement is fair and reasonable. The Court conditionally certifythe collective action and settlement class because at the stage inthe litigation that the members of the proposed settlement classare similarly situated.

EDGAR ADULT: Former Residents to Receive Compensation-----------------------------------------------------Janis Ramsay, writing for Simcoe.com, reports that residents wholived at the Edgar Adult Occupational Centre in Oro-Medonte from1966 to 1999 are finally being awarded compensation for any harmsuffered.

The Superior Court of Justice has just approved a $36-millionsettlement to those residents and 11 other facilities in Ontariowhere people with developmental disabilities lived.

The settlement is the result of a class action lawsuit broughtagainst Ontario by former residents.

The case began in 2014 with former Edgar resident MarleneMcIntyre, who lived in the institution between August 1973 andDecember 1974. She was also housed in the Huronia Regional Centrein Orillia.

At its peak, the Edgar facility held more than 260 people.

A tentative settlement was reached in November, but needed courtapproval.

"I'm glad that we were able to reach a fair settlement in thismatter," Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur said. "Theseindividuals were harmed in a place that was intended to providethem with care, and while we cannot change the past, it is my hopethat this settlement will help these individuals and theirfamilies to heal."

The 12 facilities closed between 1977 and 1999 after a governmentdecision to close residential institutions and move adults withdevelopmental disabilities to homes in the community withappropriate supports and services.

Former residents of the developmental facilities can receive acopy of their personal resident files at no charge by emailingAccessandPrivacyOffice.mcss@ontario.ca or calling 1-855-376-9886.

Class action members (eligible former residents) will have fourmonths after the court's approval of the settlement to requesttheir files.

EGS FINANCIAL: Court Grants Joint Bid to Stay "Burns" Proceedings-----------------------------------------------------------------Chief District Judge Greg Kays of the United States District Courtfor the Western District of Missouri granted the parties' JointMotion to Temporarily Stay Proceedings in the case captioned,LANCE BURNS, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, Plaintiffs, v. EGS FINANCIAL CARE, INC., Defendant, CaseNo. 4:15-CV-06173-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

The putative class action arising from alleged violations of theFair Labor Standards Act. The case is included in the Court'sMediation and Assessment Program (MAP), and the MediationConference is currently set for April 14, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

On March 16, 2016, the Court entered an order granting Defendant'smotion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' motion forconditional class certification. In its order, the Court set adeadline of May 2, 2016, for limited discovery on the issue ofconditional class certification.

Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion toTemporarily Stay Proceedings pending analysis of electronic dataand the outcome of settlement or mediation. In the motion, theparties contend that a stay is required to allow them opportunityto assemble, exchange, and review a portion of electronic datathat they believe is critical in establishing their claims anddefenses. The parties argue that this information will allow themto engage in more meaningful direct settlement negotiations andparticipate effectively in mediation.

In his Order dated April 12, 2016 available at http://is.gd/6ThHQWfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kays found that all factors weigh in favorof granting a temporary stay of the proceedings since the partiesare still in the preliminary stages of discovery, and a stay mayallow them to simplify factual disputes and streamline issues fortrial. Because the parties have agreed to toll the statute oflimitations for any person who wishes to join as a plaintiff inthe action during the period, no party will be substantiallyinjured by granting a stay and the possibility of an amicableresolution of the case outweighs the harm in delaying discovery,and the interests of judicial economy favor such a resolution.

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the TelephoneConsumer Protection Act, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a classconsisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date fouryears prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes byor on behalf of any of the Defendants Eurochoc AmericasCorporation, Eurochoc U.S.A., Inc., and Curaden USA, Inc.,promoting their goods or services for sale (d) and which did notcontain an opt out notice.

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the IllinoisConsumer Fraud Act, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a classconsisting of (a) all persons in Illinois (b) who, on or after adate three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sentfaxes by or on behalf of any of the Defendants Eurochoc AmericasCorporation, Eurochoc U.S.A., Inc., and Curaden USA, Inc.,promoting their goods or services for sale (d) and which did notcontain an opt out notice.

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion; Count IV, allegingnuisance; and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels, thePlaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons(b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of thisaction, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of any of thedefendants Eurochoc Americas Corporation, Eurochoc U.S.A., Inc.,and Curaden USA, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale(d) and which did not contain an opt out notice.

The Plaintiff further requests that he be appointed classrepresentative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC,be appointed counsel for the class.

FEDEX FREIGHT: Motion to Approve Settlement Unsealed----------------------------------------------------At the behest of the parties in the case, ROY D. TAYLOR, on behalfof himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDEXFREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,inclusive, Defendants, No. 1:13-cv-01137-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.),Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd unsealed the motion for preliminaryapproval of the settlement reached in the case.

On February 24, 2016, defendant filed an unopposed request to sealplaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of a class actionsettlement until the issuance by the court of an order grantingpreliminary approval. On February 29, the motion for preliminaryapproval was filed and on March 1, the court granted the requestto seal the motion "until further order of the court."

On April 20, 2016, the court issued the order granting preliminaryapproval of the class action settlement. On April 29, the partiesfiled a joint stipulation and proposed order unsealing the motionfor preliminary approval.

FENTON & MCGARVEY: "Tetik" Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class-------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff is the lawsuit captioned Lisa Tetik, individuallyand on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fenton &McGarvey Law Firm, P.S.C., a Kentucky corporation, and JeffersonCapital Systems, LLC, a GA limited liability company, Case No.1:16-cv-04802 (N.D. Ill.), moves the Court for classcertification, and requests that the Court allow her to representa class of all persons similarly situated in the state of Illinoisfrom whom the Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent,consumer debt allegedly owed for a Comenity Bank/Dress Barnaccount, via the same form collection letter that the Defendantssent to the Plaintiff, from one year before the date of theComplaint to the present.

The action seeks a finding that the Defendants' form collectionletter violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and asksthat the Court award damages as authorized by Section 1692k(a)(2)of the FDCPA.

FOWLER PACKING: Courts Denies Bid for Submission of Trial Plan--------------------------------------------------------------Magistrate Judge Carolyn S. Ostby of the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of California denied Defendants'motion for an order requiring plaintiffs to submit a detailedtrial plan with their motion for class certification and vacatedthe April 19, 2016 hearing in the case captioned, BEATRIZ ALDAPA,et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOWLER PACKING COMPANY, INC., et al.,Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-00420-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

In the motion, defendants requested that the court issue an orderrequiring plaintiffs to submit a detailed trial plan with theirmotion for class certification. Defendants argue that plaintiff'strial plan include: 1) an explanation of how the membership of theclass will be established; 2) an explanation of how liability willbe established; 3) an explanation of how defendants will have anopportunity to present their liability defenses; 4) an explanationof how damages will be calculated; 5) a witness list and summaryof the expected.

According to plaintiffs, discovery on class certification issueshas not yet even commenced, let alone any merits focuseddiscovery.

In the Order dated April 13, 2016 available at http://is.gd/o7onPAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Drozd agreed with plaintiffs thatdefendants' request for a detailed trial plan is premature at thejuncture in the case and defendants have cited no bindingauthority suggesting a trial plan must be filed at the stage in aclass action.

FRONTERA FOODS: Recalls Taco Skillet Sauce Due to Soy-----------------------------------------------------Frontera Foods of Chicago, Illinois is recalling a total of 720 (8oz.) packages of its Frontera Texas Original Taco Skillet Saucebecause it contains undeclared soy. People who have an allergy orsevere sensitivity to soy may run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The recalled Frontera Texas Original Taco Skillet Sauce packageswere only distributed to District Columbia and the following 11states; Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, NewHampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,Virginia and Vermont. The recalled product went to the specificretail stores on the attached list.

The product comes in a printed 8 oz. pouch that is marked with a"BEST BY" date of "13 APR 17" on the bottom of the back side ofthe package. Please see the attached picture as a reference. TheUPC code for the recalled product is: 6-04183-12170-7.

No illnesses have been reported to date and there are no othersafety concerns for people who do not have a soy allergy.

This recall was voluntarily issued by the company after itdiscovered that the label on the product did not accuratelyreflect the ingredients. The company has since corrected theproblem and has initiated corrective actions to prevent itsreoccurrence.

Consumers who have purchased 8 oz. packages of Frontera TexasOriginal Taco Skillet Sauce with a "BEST BY" date of "13 APR 17"are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a fullrefund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at (800) 509-4441, Monday to Friday, 8 am to 5 pm, CST.

GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Walnut Delight and Pecan Tassie Cookies------------------------------------------------------------All lots of Giant Eagle brand Walnut Delight and Pecan Tassiecookies prepared and sold from the Bakery department inside GiantEagle and Market District supermarkets with sell by dates throughMay 3, 2016 have been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due toan undeclared milk allergen. People who have an allergy or severesensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious or life-threateningallergic reaction if they consume these products. The product issafe for consumption by those who do not have milk allergies.Approximately 44,000 purchases containing the potentially affectedPecan Tassies and 290 purchases containing the potentiallyaffected Walnut Delights were made in Giant Eagle and MarketDistrict supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia,Maryland and Indiana. There are no reported illnesses to dateassociated with this recall.

The Walnut Delights were sold in packages of six in plastic clamshells with a PLU of 69690. The Pecan Tassies were also sold inpackages of six in plastic clam shells with a PLU of 77997, butwere also included in small, medium and large cookie trays withPLUs of 9793, 9794 and 9795 respectively. All affected items weresold in the Bakery department.

Giant Eagle became aware of the issue for both items after aquality assurance review of the ingredient declaration. Theproduct label for the bakery items, which contain milk, omittedmilk as an allergen.

Customers with a milk allergy who have purchased the affectedproduct should dispose of it or return it to their local GiantEagle or Market District store for a refund. Customers withquestions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, the Court preliminarily certified a settlement classconsisting of:

All persons and entities, individually and collectively, who invested money in or through Glen Galemmo or his affiliated entities from January 1, 2002 to July 26, 2013 and suffered a net loss (i.e., the funds invested exceeded the total of all funds received in the form of purported income or return of principal).

The Court appointed Plaintiffs John Capannari, John A. Andersonand Kevin Eickmann as the Lead Plaintiffs and the law firms ofCummins & Brown LLC and Strauss Troy Co., LPA as Lead Counsel forLead Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, as set forth in theCourt's Order of April 7, 2014.

Class Counsel are awarded $151,237 in attorneys' fees, and $62,102for reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses since theinception of the case.

Other than any authorized payment or awards pursuant to the FinalApproval Order, the Court directed the Class Counsel not todistribute any portion of the Settlement Fund except in accordancewith further orders of this Court. The Court also ordered theClass Counsel to continue to communicate and coordinate withparties and counsel in other Galemmo-related litigation in orderto distribute the Settlement Fund in a manner that treats ClassMembers fairly and consistently.

H&R Block moves for summary judgment on all five counts. Mr.Perras seeks certification of a class of "[a]ll persons whopurchased from H&R Block tax return preparation services forpersonal, family or household purposes and paid H&R Block'scompliance fee in the state of California."

H&R Block contends that Mr. Perras' claim for money had andreceived must fail because H&R Block was never indebted to him.

Judge Phillips noted that the undisputed facts show that thecompliance fee was intended to cover costs that H&R Block wouldincur in order to comply with IRS regulations. She adds that Mr.Perras offers no basis for his argument that the fee was supposedto benefit him and other customers -- on the contrary, the fee wassupposed to benefit H&R Block by offsetting costs. For thesereasons, the Court opined that Mr. Perras' claim for money had andreceived, among other claims, fail as a matter of law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in anunpublished opinion, said a federal district court should haveallowed limited discovery on whether issues common to a largegroup of potential plaintiffs would predominate over any questionsunique to the individuals in the action, rather than disallowingclass certification.

The case involves an issue that is growing: whether medicalproviders should be stopped from charging allegedly unreasonableamounts for emergency services when they know those claims won'tbe paid by no-fault insurers, thus rendering the patients liablefor the overlap. The billing practices are known as surprise orbalance billing.

This putative class action was brought against HCA Holdings Inc.and three of its Florida hospitals, alleging that the hospitalscharged unreasonable fees for emergency radiological services. TheU.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida struck theplaintiffs' class action allegations, effectively denying classcertification (40 HCDR, 3/2/15).

PIP Coverage Limits

Florida law requires motor vehicle owners to have personal injuryprotection, or PIP, insurance coverage. Once an insurer pays the$10,000 policy limit, however, the insured become responsible forany remaining expenses.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant hospitals chargedPIP-covered patients unreasonable fees for radiological services.In some cases, they said, the fees charged were 65 percent higherthan the usual and customary fees charged for similar services.

The plaintiffs asserted violations of Florida's Deceptive andUnfair Trade Practices Act and breach of contract. The districtcourt refused to dismiss the complaint, but struck the classallegations after finding that the key issues, namely thereasonableness of the hospitals' charges and damages incurred byeach plaintiff, "would be highly individualized in nature."

Common Questions

Class certification is appropriate when questions of law or factcommon to the class members predominate over questions that affectonly individuals. The district court said this requirement hadn'tbeen met in this case.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, saying it wasn't apparent on theface of the plaintiffs' complaint that individualized issues wouldpredominate. The parties, the court said, presented conflictinginterpretations of the issues and evidence that would be requiredto establish liability and damages for the whole class.

The court said discovery "could reveal that it is relatively easyto determine that these rates are unreasonable across the boardwithout having to analyze differences between hospitals orpatients." Moreover, it said, the presence of individualizeddamages issues didn't necessarily prevent a finding that commonissues in the case predominate.

The court said its opinion shouldn't be read to suggest how thedistrict court should rule on the certification question. It heldonly that the lower court should have allowed discovery instead ofstriking the class allegations.

All persons employed by Defendant[ ] in hourly or non-exempt positions in California from September 18, 2010 through the date of class certification, who worked a shift past midnight in which the total aggregate number of hours for that shift exceeded eight hours.

HONEST COMPANY: Faces Various Class Actions Over Product Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Adele Chapin, writing for racked, reports that Jessica Alba's non-toxic brand The Honest Company got its start selling diapers andbaby products, and now it's an empire. The brand stockseverything from vitamins to tampons, and it expanded into beautylast year with an 83-piece makeup line. The Honest Company'ssuccess landed Alba on the cover of Forbes magazine's "America'sRichest Self-Made Women" issue touting her brand's $1 billiondollar valuation.

But now as The Honest Company is reportedly working toward an IPO,lawsuits are coming out of the woodwork including one filed by theOrganic Consumers Association being reported on April 27. Alba'scompany is dealing with a rash of lawsuits claiming that Honesthas violated its promise to produce products without health-compromising chemicals or compounds -- a charge the companyvehemently denies.

Here's what to know about The Honest Company backlash:

THE LAWSUITS

Shampoo and body wash. In February of this year, Fortune reportedthat a lawsuit filed in a New York District Court alleged thatHonest "falsely" and "deceptively" labeled its products as naturaland plant-based. Brad and Manon Buonasera said they bought thecompany's shampoo and body wash based on those claims. Their suitalleged Honest's products actually contained synthetic and toxicingredients, even though advertising copy claimed "no harshchemicals, ever!"

Honest wrote in a statement that the lawsuit's allegations were"without merit" and that they would "vigorously defend thisbaseless lawsuit."

Sunscreen and more. A $5 million lawsuit filed in NorthernCalifornia District Court in September 2015 claimed that severalof Honest's products, including soap, diapers, and cleanerscontain "unnatural ingredients," according to ABC News. The suitalso called out Honest sunscreen for not being effective.

That sunscreen complaint also went viral when customers startedtweeting out photos of horrible sunburns that happened while usingHonest sunscreen.

Ms. Alba's brand responded with a lengthy blog post apology thatincluded photos of her children and a defense of its sunscreenformula:

"We've gone through extensive third-party testing in accordancewith government regulations and our Sunscreen Lotion passed allSPF 30 testing requirements. It also received the best scorepossible from the Environmental Working Group (EWG). We careabout taking every precaution possible to ensure that your productexperience will keep you healthy and happy.Detergent. In March, WSJ published an article with the results ofcommissioned lab testing, saying that Honest detergent contained asignificant amount of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) -- a chemicalthat the company pledged to avoid."

Honest said that it used Sodium Coco Sulfate (SCS), "a gentleralternative that is less irritating and safer to use," then thecompany went after the Wall Street Journal's journalisticintegrity. "The Wall Street Journal has been reckless in thepreparation of this article, refused multiple requests to sharedata on which they apparently relied and has substituted junkscience for credible journalism," the brand's statement said inpart.

Within seven days of the WSJ story, a consumer filed a class-action lawsuit against Honest over the detergent. Inc. reportsthat the lawsuit alleges that the company is "misleading[consumers] in the extreme" with advertising that mentions itsdetergent being SLS-free.

Baby food. News just broke about a lawsuit filed in Los AngelesSuperior Court by the Organic Consumers Association, alleging that11 ingredients out of 40 in Honest's baby food are synthetic.Fortune reports that the suit claims that the baby food "isfalsely labeled as 'organic.'"

The Honest Company might not just be looking at an IPO -- WWDreported in April that the brand, which has $222 million inventure capital backing, might be considering a sale as well.

Will all the lawsuits affect Honest Company's future? One analystdoesn't think so. "The brand is almost on the cusp of beingbigger than the lawsuits and the negative press around it," MartinOkner, managing director at SHM Corporate Navigators, told WWD."It's been in the press now for months and it hasn't had amaterial impact on sales at this point."

HOUSTON, TX: Summary Judgment in "Fontenot" Affirmed----------------------------------------------------In the case captioned BERTHA M. FONTENOT, Individually and onBehalf of Those Similarly Situated; DAVID MILLER; SANTA ZAMARRON,Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF HOUSTON; CLERK OF COURTCHARLOTTE BOOKER, Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-20763 (5th Cir.),the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed thedistrict court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City ofHouston and its denial of David Miller's motion for classcertification.

The appeal was brought by David Miller, who had alleged that theCity violated due process rights when it reported to the Statethat he had been convicted of committing a more serious drivingoffense than in fact was true. As a result of the misreporting,the State assessed a surcharge against Miller for which he was notstatutorily liable. The City's misreporting was not unique toMiller; for over six years, the City of Houston regularly reportedconvictions like Miller's as different, more serious convictions.

The Fifth Circuit, however, found that Miller has not presentedenough evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as towhether the City had an official policy or custom to misreportconvictions.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 2, 2016 opinion is availableat http://is.gd/dhLzdlfrom Leagle.com.

HOUSTON CASUALTY: 3rd Cir. Says $102MM Excluded from PNC Coverage-----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed in partand reversed in part the district court's ruling in the casecaptioned THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; PNC BANK, N.A.,individually and as Successor in Interest to National City Bank,Appellants in No. 15-1656, v. HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY;* AXISINSURANCE COMPANY *(Dismissed Pursuant to Court's Order dated07/17/2015) AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant in No. 15-1717, Nos.15-1656, 15-1717 (3rd Cir.).

The appeal concerns whether PNC is entitled to insurance coveragefor amounts it paid to resolve several class action lawsuits.Specifically at issue is whether $102 million that PNC paidpursuant to two settlement agreements is covered under PNC'sinsurance policy with its excess insurer, Axis Insurance Company.

On cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Courtconcluded that the majority of the settlement payments wereexcluded from coverage under the policy's "Professional ServicesCharge Exception" because the payments constituted a refund ofoverdraft fees paid by PNC's customers. The District Court alsoheld, however, that approximately $30 million of the $102 million,which was awarded to class counsel as attorneys' fees and costs,was recoverable under the policy as covered "Damages" that did notfall within the Professional Services Charge Exception.

On appeal by PNC and cross-appeal by Axis, the Third Circuitconcluded that the entire $102 million is excluded from coverageunder the Professional Services Charge Exception.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 2, 2016 opinion isavailable at http://is.gd/3orOPafrom Leagle.com.

INTERNATIONAL CRUISE: Bid to Certify "Burnside" Class Withdrawn---------------------------------------------------------------The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois made a docket entry on April 26, 2016, in the case titledBryson Burnside v. International Cruise & Excursion Gallery, Inc.,et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-02511 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearingheld before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman.

All natural persons residing in the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) (a) who submitted an employment application, or application for transfer or promotion, or for retention with, and (b) who were the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant for employment purposes between May 22, 2010 and June 8, 2015, (referenced herein as the "Settlement Class")

Luis A. Cabassa, Esq., and Brandon J. Hill, Esq., of Wenzel FentonCabassa, P.A., will continue to serve as Class Counsel for theSettlement Class. Named Plaintiff, Nieyshia Patrick, willcontinue to serve as Class Representative for the SettlementClass.

As of the Effective Date, the Settlement Class members, includingthe Plaintiff, but excluding those individuals who asked to beexcluded from the Settlement, release the Defendant and its U.S.affiliates and subsidiaries, from the "Released Claims."

The Releasing Parties stipulate and agree that upon the Court'sfinal approval of this Settlement Agreement, the claims in thecase shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Releasing Parties, onbehalf of themselves and their respective assigns, agree not tosue or otherwise make a claim against any of the Released Partiesthat is in any way related to the Released Claims.

The Court dismisses the Action and all claims with prejudice,without costs to any party, except as expressly provided for inthe Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Administrator has identified one individual,specifically "Nadifo Halane," who timely submitted a request forexclusion from the Settlement Class in compliance with theprocedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. Theperson so identified shall not be entitled to benefits from thesettlement nor bound by this Final Order.

The Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Fees, Costs, and a ClassRepresentative Award is granted. The Plaintiff's counsel isawarded a fee consisting of one-third of the total common fund(equating to $175,000), plus costs totaling $3,580. NieyshiaPatrick, is awarded an incentive award of $10,000. Additionally,the settlement administrator will receive $65,000 for all workperformed in this case. All of the fees are to be paid from theSettlement Fund.

All current and former financial advisors, financial consultants, registered representatives, and individuals with similar or related titles -- also known as and sometimes referred to as "security brokers" -- who were employed by Investment Professionals Inc., in the United States at any time in the past three years, and who were compensated on a commissions-only basis.

The Plaintiff (i) seeks approval of the form of the notice to besent to the prospective plaintiffs, (ii) seeks authority for thedissemination of the notice to the prospective plaintiffs via U.S.Mail, in current employees' pay envelopes, as well as electronicmail, and via workplace posting at all of Defendant's facilities,and (iii) asks the Court to instruct the Defendant to produce thenames and addresses of the prospective plaintiffs, in a computer-readable format.

Specifically, Ms. Davis, on behalf of herself and those similarlysituated individuals, asks the Court to issue an order:

-- conditionally certifying a class of current and former hourly non-exempt assistant managers, who worked for the Defendants at JP Sports Collectibles Inc. between February 25, 2013, and the present;

-- directing the Defendants to produce, in an electronic readable format, to undersigned counsel within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion, a list containing the names, the last known addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of putative class members, who worked for the Defendants between February 25, 2013, and the present;

-- authorizing the Counsel to send notice to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants' counsel by first-class mail and e-mail; and

-- providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants' counsel with 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants as an assistantmanager. She alleges that she was not paid for all hours workincluding overtime when applicable. She discloses that she andother employees, who worked for the Defendants, have come forwardto participate in this case by opting-in to this matter.

KODAK: Settles Stock Ownership Plan Class Action for $9.7MM-----------------------------------------------------------13WHAM News reports that thousands of current and former Kodakemployees are eligible to receive part of a $9.7 millionsettlement stemming from a class action lawsuit.

The defendants in this case are former Kodak executives who werepart of the Savings and Investment Plan Committee, the StockOwnership Plan Committee and others overseeing retirement plans.

"Unfortunately it seems to me Kodak said we'll pay the 10 millionbucks to leave us alone," said George Conboy of BrightonSecurities.

After Kodak filed for bankruptcy in early 2012, several lawsuitswere filed against the company involving the employees' Savingsand Investment Plan, as well as the Kodak Employee Stock OwnershipPlan.

Federal court paperwork states the employees claimed Eastman Kodakshould be held liable for offering Kodak stock as a investmentoption, even after financial experts and bankruptcy attorneysdetermined Kodak's financial situation was extremely poor, thusmaking its shares a bad investment.

The lawsuits were eventually combined and consolidated into aclass-action suit comprising more than 21,000 current and formeremployees.

Paperwork filed in federal court states that the $9.7 millionsettlement "is guaranteed to be allocated to the Settlement classmembers, after all Court-approved fees, awards, and expenses arededucted."

Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Settlement Classmember will be paid in proportion to their losses in either (orboth) the ESOP or the SIP's Kodak Stock Fund."

The $9.7 million, "represents a recovery of between approximatelytwenty to fifty percent of the total damages suffered," accordingto the paperwork.

"At this point, years after the bankruptcy, I think any retireewill be happy to get a check, but it doesn't change the fact thatthey kept faith with their employer till the end and theiremployer didn't keep faith with them," said Mr. Conboy.

Preliminary approval for the agreement was given by District JudgeDavid Larimer in a court order on April 26.

Court paperwork states that, "settlement class members do not needto submit a claim form to participate and will automaticallyreceive their portion of the settlement proceeds."

13WHAM News will continue to update this developing story as moreinformation becomes available.

KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Settlement------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in four putative class action lawsuits againstKovitz Shifrin Nesbit jointly filed with the U.S. District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois their renewed motion andmemorandum of law (unopposed) for preliminary approval of a non-common fund class settlement. The four cases are:

The Parties have revised their Settlement Agreement pursuant tothe Court's previous instructions. To avoid the cost of furtherlitigation, the Parties renewed their negotiation in good faithand reached a new agreement. Under this revised Settlement, KSNagreed to pay an additional amount into the Settlement Fund whilethe Plaintiffs agreed to reduce their request for attorneys' feesand cost, relative to their original agreement reached onOctober 27, 2015, at the settlement conference.

If the proposed preliminary approval for the revised Settlement ofthe consumer debt collection class action, and later finalapproval, is approved by the Court, the Plaintiffs will recoverfrom KSN a total settlement sum of $320,000 (versus $220,000 inthe original agreement), which now guarantees a minimum of$150,000 for the class (versus $30,000 in the original agreement)and which includes payments of costs of class administration,Plaintiffs, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Settlement Class is defined as

"All persons, including Plaintiffs, who from May 27, 2012 through January 22, 2016 or the Preliminary Approval Date, whichever is later, resided in Illinois and were sent a '30-day Notice and Demand' by KSN."

In summary, the Parties' revised proposed class settlementtotaling $320,000 is as follows:

Digoxin is s prescription drug that is used to treat mild tomoderate heart failure in adults, increase the heart contractingfunctions for pediatric patients with heart failure, and controlthe resting heart rate in adult patients with chronic atrialfibrillation.

Doxycycline monohydrate is a prescription antibiotic used intreating humans and animals.

The Defendants own and operate pharmaceutical companies thatmanufacture and distribute generic digoxin and genericdoxycycline.

All persons who received an ACV payment, directly or indirectly, from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company for physical loss or damage to their dwelling or other structures located in the state of Missouri arising under policy Form HO 03 (Edition 04 91) and endorsements, such payments arising from losses that occurred from April 8, 2004 to the date of class certification, where a deductible was applied to the ACV payment for the person's dwelling or other structure (Coverage A and/or B). Excluded from the Class are: (1) All persons who received a replacement cost payment from Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company under Coverage A and/or B; (2) All persons whose payment(s) plus the amount of any deductible applied was less than $2,500; (3) Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and its affiliates, officers, and directors; (4) Members of the judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned; and (5) Plaintiffs' Counsel.

The Plaintiffs contends that certification of the proposed Classis appropriate because, among other things, the class is sonumerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

LP's former subsidiary, ABT Building Products Corporation (ABT),manufactured and sold TrimBoard, an exterior building componentintended for use as trim in housing construction. In 2003, Brownpurchased a lot from Bryan Clark Holmes, LLC in Urbandale, Iowa,and hired Bryan Clark to construct a home on the property forBrown and his wife. When discussing construction materials withClark, Brown emphasized the importance of finding a siding-and-trim product that would not cause the rotting and bucklingproblems present in Brown's prior home. TrimBoard was ultimatelythe product selected and installed on Brown's home.

In August 2004, Brown moved into his new home. Sometime in 2010,Brown noticed damage to certain pieces of the installed TrimBoardand contacted Clark, who advised Brown of the ten-year limitedwarranty. Brown located a copy of the limited warranty on LP'swebsite and filed a warranty claim. In response to Brown'swarranty claim, LP sent a warranty representative to inspectBrown's house and identify the damaged TrimBoard. LP offered Brown$197.67 in compensation for the damaged TrimBoard, which Brownrejected.

Brown subsequently filed this putative class action, allegingclaims for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach ofwarranty, and unfair or deceptive practices, and requesteddeclaratory relief and money damages. Pursuant to LP's dismissalmotion, the district court dismissed Brown's claim for negligenceand permitted the remaining claims to proceed. LP then moved forsummary judgment on all remaining claims. The district courtgranted summary judgment to LP on the remaining claims findingthat Brown failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material facton whether LP made a representation to Clark and that the limitedwarranty did not fail of its essential purpose and was notunconscionable, meaning that Brown's remedy was limited to thewarranty's terms.

On appeal, Brown argues that the district court erred in grantingsummary judgment to LP on his claims for fraudulentmisrepresentation, unfair or deceptive practices, and breach ofwarranty.

In the Order dated April 12, 2016, available athttp://is.gd/qMVy5Ffrom Leagle.com, Judge Smith found that the district court did not err in its judgment holding that Clark'saffidavit is insufficient to create a genuine issue of materialfact as to whether Clark received a communication from LP that hesubsequently communicated to Brown and upon which Brown relied.

LTD FINANCIAL: Court Postpones Class Certification Adjudication---------------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Paul G. Byron postpones adjudication of the Plaintiff'smotion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned LIZNELIABAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., Case No. 6:15-cv-1043-Orl-40TBS(M.D. Fla.), until the Plaintiff is given an opportunity to complywith Local Rule 4.04(b).

The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action against theDefendant to allegedly vindicate her rights and the rights ofother similarly situated consumers under the Fair Debt CollectionPractices Act. She states that she and approximately 34,000 otherconsumers received dunning letters from the Defendant, whichsought payment on debts that are barred by the applicable statuteof limitations.

Of the many requirements the Plaintiff must satisfy before theCourt may certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure is this Court's Local Rule 4.04(b), accordingto the Order. That rule provides, in pertinent part, that amotion to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class "shall . . . suggest ameans of providing, and defraying the cost of, the notice requiredby Rule 23(c)(2)."

Upon review of Plaintiff's motion in this case, it is clear thatthe Plaintiff has not met this requirement, Judge Byron noted.Accordingly, he opined, certification cannot be granted at thistime.

The Plaintiff has 14 days from the date of this Order to file asupplemental brief. The Defendant has 14 days from the date thePlaintiff files her supplemental brief to file a response, ifnecessary.

MAKING IT A LIFESTYLE: Recalls Dietary Supplements--------------------------------------------------Making It A Lifestyle, L.L.C. is voluntarily recalling all lots of3rd Degree, Black Gold X Advanced and Black Label X capsule formsupplements to the consumer level. The products have been found tocontain undeclared sibutramine and sildenafil. These undeclaredingredients make these products an unapproved new drug for whichsafety and efficacy have not been established.FDA laboratory analysis confirmed that 3rd Degree and Black Gold XAdvanced contains sibutramine. Sibutramine is a controlledsubstance that was removed from the market in October 2010 forsafety reasons. The product poses a threat to consumers becausesibutramine is known to substantially increase blood pressureand/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significantrisk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease,congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, or stroke. This product mayalso interact, in life-threatening ways, with other medications aconsumer may be taking. Additionally, FDA laboratory analysisconfirmed that Black Label X contains sildenafil, the activeingredient in the FDA approved prescription drug Viagra, used totreat erectile dysfunction (ED). This undeclared ingredient mayinteract with nitrates found in some prescription drugs such asnitroglycerin and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.Men with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heartdisease often take nitrates. To date, Making It a Lifestyle hasnot received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

Black Label X, Black Gold X Advanced, and 3rd Degree are marketedas weight loss dietary supplements and are packaged in whiteplastic bottles, containing 60 capsules per bottle. The productscan be identified by the names on the bottle. These products weredistributed nationwide via internet.

Making It A Lifestyle, L.L.C. is notifying its distributors andcustomers by e-mail and is arranging for return of all recalledproducts. Consumers who have the recalled products should stopusing them. The recalled products were distributed from February2015 to April 27th 2016.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact MakingIt A Lifestyle, L.L.C. via by phone 1-888-648-4447 Monday thruFriday 9:00am to 1:00pm or email at Makingitalifestyle@gmail.com.Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider ifthey have experienced any problems that may be related to takingor using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use ofthis product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse EventReporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htmRegular Mail or Fax: Download formwww.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 torequest a reporting form, then complete and return to the addresson the preaddressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Foodand Drug Administration.

MDL 2575: Class Certification Sought in Water Connector Case------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in certain lawsuits consolidated in themultidistrict litigation captioned In re: Fluidmaster, Inc., WaterConnector Components Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2575,filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois a motion and supporting memorandum of law asking theCourt to certify these classes:

Class #1 -- Nationwide class under California CLRA: All persons who purchased or leased a No-Burst Line, not for resale, or sustained damage from the failure of a No-Burst Water Supply Line, between April 24, 2011, and the date of certification.

Proposed Class #1 Representatives are Steven Rensel and Karen Rhyne

Class #2 -- State Sub-Classes: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), breach of warranty on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired a No-Burst Line, or sustained damage from the failure of a No-Burst Line, between April 24, 2004, and the date of certification in Pennsylvania, Vermont, Alabama, Minnesota, Arizona, and Tennessee.

Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), negligence on behalf of all persons who sustained damage from the failure of a No-Burst Line, between April 24, 2012 [or applicable statute of limitation], and the date of certification in Pennsylvania, Vermont, Alabama, Minnesota, Arizona, Illinois, North Dakota, Georgia, Maine, California and New Hampshire.

Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), strict liability on behalf of all persons who sustained damage from the failure of a No-Burst Line, between April 24, 2012 [or applicable statute of limitation], and the date of certification in Pennsylvania, Vermont, Alabama, Minnesota, Arizona, Illinois, North Dakota, Georgia, Maine, California and New Hampshire.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint thePlaintiffs identified in the Memorandum of Law as classrepresentatives, and Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.,and Berger & Montague, P.C. as Class Counsel, and Wexler WallaceLLP as Liaison Counsel.

The lawsuits and the requesting Plaintiffs are:

* Rensel, et al., v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-000648;

* Sullivan, et al., v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 05696;

* Hardwick v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00363;

* Hungerman, et al. v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv- 00994;

* Wyble v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01826;

* Larson v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-10222; and

* Smith v. Fluidmaster, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00932.

Copies of the Motion and Memorandum of Law are available at nocharge at:

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp in Trenton, New Jersey, on April27 granted conditional certification to a proposed class ofcurrent and former representatives under the federal Equal PayAct, which requires women and men to be paid equally for the samework.

The complaint alleges that Merck systematically paid female salesrepresentatives less than their male peers, denied them promotionsand subjected them to sexual harassment and an otherwise hostilework environment.

Employees who become pregnant or have children were oftenpressured to leave the company, the complaint says.

A collective action under the Equal Pay Act requires potentialclass members to opt in, unlike a traditional class action inwhich class members must opt out. Judge Shipp's order allowsnotices to be sent to potential members so they can opt in.

The class includes women who worked in certain salesrepresentative positions going back to 2009. It would stillrequire final approval later in the case for class members to windamages.

However, Judge Shipp ruled that the four former salesrepresentatives who brought the lawsuit had already made a "modestfactual showing" of how Merck's policies affected them and otheremployees similarly.

"We're glad that women across the country are going to have anopportunity to join this case," said Russell Kornblith, anattorney for the plaintiffs.

"We remain confident that this case lacks merit," Merck said in astatement emailed by spokeswoman Lainie Keller. "The company willcontinue to vigorously defend itself, and remains fully committedto providing equal employment opportunities for all employees."

The lawsuit, filed in 2013 in New Jersey U.S. District Court, alsoincludes claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Theplaintiffs are seeking to bring those claims as a class action,though no class has yet been certified.

The case is Smith et al v. Merck & Co Inc, U.S. District Court,District of New Jersey, No. 3:13-cv-02970.

MICHIGAN: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Against UIA-----------------------------------------------------Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that anattorney suing the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency,alleging it has wrongly accused tens of thousands of residents offraud and unlawfully confiscated tens of millions of dollars inbenefits and penalties, says an auditor general's report that washighly critical of the agency supports her claims.

In the state's response to the report released April 21, "they'readmitting (the state's unemployment insurance system) is flawed inthe ways we're claiming it's flawed," Royal Oak attorney JenniferLord told the Free Press on April 27.

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stevens is expected to rulesoon on the state's motion to dismiss Ms. Lord's proposed classaction. Arguments were heard on March 8.

The lawsuit, filed in 2015, alleges the automated system theagency uses for detecting and adjudicating unemployment insurancefraud "deprives UIA claimants of due process and fair and justtreatment because it determines guilt without providing notice,without proving guilt and without affording claimants anopportunity to be heard before penalties are imposed."

The suit also alleges the state agency engages in unlawfulcollection practices when it seizes benefits and income taxreturns and garnishes wages to collect the penalties itarbitrarily assesses.

In a motion filed in October, attorneys for the UnemploymentInsurance Agency urged Stevens to dismiss the suit, saying thesystem worked the way it should because lead plaintiffGrant Bauserman appealed the agency's fraud determination againsthim and "the agency reconsidered its previous determinations andheld Mr. Bauserman not liable for interest and penalties."

The state agency argued "Bauserman has been refunded all moniesintercepted and he owes the agency no money," and therefore "thereis no claim upon which relief may be granted."

But another client of Lord's, Daniel Di Gregorio, told the FreePress on April 27 he's continued to receive letters from the UIAaccusing him of fraud, even after Administrative Law Judge StephenGoldstein threw out all allegations against him in February sayingthat by failing to specify details about its allegations againstDi Gregorio, "the agency violate(d) the most rudimentary demandsof due process of law."

Mr. Di Gregorio, a crane operator in the concrete business, saidhis wife Shirl took the lead in fighting the $33,000 demand hereceived from the state agency and "if it wasn't for my wife, Idon't know what I would have done." He said he might have rolledover and found a way to pay the money.

Weeks after the judge ruled in her husband's favor, he receivedanother payment demand from the agency, this time for $6,000,Shirl Di Gregorio said.

Ms. Lord said the report issued April 21 by Auditor General DougRingler supports her case because the audit details how thestate's MiDAS (Michigan Integrated Data Automated System),introduced in 2013, arbitrarily makes fraud determinations basedon answers to innocuous questions such as whether someone appliedfor benefits because they needed the money. The audit alsodetails how the agency fails to spell out details that would allowclaimants to defend themselves against fraud allegations, and saysthe agency fails to give proper notice of allegations andrepeatedly sends notices to incorrect addresses even after lettershave been returned as "undeliverable."

In each case, the agency agreed with the auditor's findings,though it says it has made changes. Mr. Di Gregorio's experienceshows that even if methods have changed, similar results continue,Ms. Lord said.

Ms. Lord said she sees parallels with the state's conduct in thelead poisoning of Flint's drinking water: "The parallel I see isthat there's a CEO mentality," in which the human element isignored and "it's all based on the bottom line," she said.

But Mr. Silfven took issues with the Flint comparison andsuggestions Gov. Rick Snyder places too much emphasis on thebottom line.

"To the contrary, the governor reminds his team constantly thateverything we do is about serving people," Mr. Silfven said in ane-mail.

"I know that's what motivates him as he does his job. That's whyhe had the courage to lead the way on such things as the HealthyMichigan program. He's driven by compassion and a clear sense ofduty. It's not just dollars and cents. He's made clear time andagain that we can never forget the human element when it comes toshaping programs or policy."

Mr. Koncius' firm, Kiesel Law, represents Modesto resident AndrewHobbs, whose class-action lawsuit against MID was filed March 15.Previous Modesto Bee reporting has focused on the other lawsuit,brought two weeks later by Dave Thomas of Modesto.

"As best I can tell, they didn't know about our case when theyfiled theirs, and we didn't know about theirs when we filed ours,"Mr. Koncius said.

Both say overcharging power customers amounts to an illegal taxprohibited by state law unless MID asks for voter approval, whichit has not. The Hobbs complaint goes a step further, accusing MIDof overcharging homes to subsidize businesses that pay lower ratesfor power, in addition to farmers getting sweet deals on water.

Bee analyses have shown that MID reaped an average yearlyelectricity profit of $93 million from 2010 to 2014, for a five-year total of $466 million. MID has used that money to repay debtand build reserves, currently $196 million.

Electricity profits also subsidize irrigation prices, bothlawsuits note. This year, the subsidy comes to more than $17million: it costs MID $21.2 million to deliver water, whilecustomers pay only $3.82 million -- even after the MID boardraised water rates 20 percent. The utility serves about 600farms, critics estimate.

The district has refused to separate its water and powerbookkeeping. The board has raised water rates several times inrecent years while leaving power rates alone since 2011, about thetime an attorney privately advised that an increase without a voteof the people might violate state law.

MID's water side deserves but gets no credit for servicesbenefiting its power side, farm advocates say, such as canalssupporting power poles and carrying stormwater from Modestostreets, and irrigation replenishing groundwater aquifers.

Mr. Thomas' complaint, brought by Krause, Kalfayan, Benink &Slavens of San Diego, seeks refunds since February 2015, whileHobbs' asks for refunds since March 2013.

Attorneys representing both have experience in litigation allegingthat utilities have overcharged customers.

MOTOROLA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Customer Support-------------------------------------------------------Alexander Maxham, writing for Android Headlines, reports thatlately, the big news coming on the Motorola front has been abouttheir poor customer support when a user needs to get a replacementdevice, because theirs is faulty. Some have been told thatMotorola doesn't have any replacements to send out, and othershave gotten a replacement which was not the one they ordered inthe first place. As is the case with the main plaintiff in thisclass action lawsuit. Douglas Lynch, who is a Georgia resident,states that Motorola took months to replace his Moto 360 which wasdefective, in 2015. Motorola did finally replace it, but sent hima cheaper model than the one that he bought. This isn't just aone time occurrence either, the court filing has a number ofadditional cases where the same thing happened. Motorola hasindeed admitted that there are delays in the processing ofwarranty claims. That's cool and all, but doesn't help users thatpaid for their Moto Care warranty, and now are out of a workingdevice.

When it comes to customer service, not everyone's experience isthe same. For every company that has customer service, you canfind a group that has had a rough time with their customerservice, and another group that has had no issues. Lately, itseems that Motorola's customer service has just been atrociousthough. Which is out of the norm for Motorola. The class actionlawsuit is for $5 million, and we'll likely be hearing a lot moreon this in the coming weeks.

This could turn out to be a pretty expensive lawsuit for Motorolaand Lenovo. With Lenovo having just restructured their latestacquisition, one has to wonder if this is part of thatrestructuring. It likely isn't, but could be a cost cuttingmeasure. Either way it's not sitting well with consumers, andthat should be no surprise. This could definitely affect bothMotorola and Lenovo's sales moving forward, which isn't going tobe good for Lenovo. Especially where they want to challenge the"big dogs" Apple and Samsung in the near future -- a bit reasonfor buying up Motorola.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 3, 2016 opinion isavailable at http://is.gd/Ukl0ySfrom Leagle.com.

MTD PRODUCTS: Recalls Utility Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withMTD Products Company, of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a voluntaryrecall of about 1,300 Utility vehicles. Consumers should stopusing this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal toresell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The parking brake cable can fail, posing a crash hazard.

This recall involves model year 2015 Cub Cadet Challenger CX500and Challenger CX700 four-wheel drive off-road utility vehicles.The recalled vehicles have two bucket seats, roll bars, a canopy,a two-piece windshield, a 35.5-inch by 44-inch cargo bed and awinch. The vehicles were sold in the colors camouflage and yellow.Challenger utility vehicles with the following model numbers arebeing recalled. The model number is located under the driver'sseat.

The recalled products are sold at Cub Cadet dealers nationwidefrom April 2015 through October 2015 for between $8,500 to $9,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles andcontact a Cub Cadet dealer to schedule an appointment for a freerepair. Cub Cadet is contacting owners of the recalled utilityvehicles directly.

The claim, which Slater and Gordon is investigating together withlitigation funder IMF Bentham Limited, relates to guidanceprovided by Murray Goulburn in its Product Disclosure Statement(PDS) issued last July ahead of its $500 million capital raising.

Those forecasts have since been slashed.

Slater and Gordon Senior class action lawyer Tim Finney said in astatement that the firm would investigate whether Murray Goulburnhas misled the market.

It comes as the Australian Securities and Investments Commisisonis believed to have circumstances surrounding the downgrade andthe issue of the PDS "on its radar."

"The downgrade was of such a scale that it cannot be explained bythe excuses that have so far been provided. We are investigatingwhether the true cause of Murray Goulburn's downgrade was anaggressively optimistic profit forecast - built into its ProductDisclosure Statement -- that the company was simply never going toachieve."

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Approval of Concussion Deal Affirmed-------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed thedecision of the district court in the case captioned IN RE:NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION.

The National Football League ("NFL") has agreed to resolvelawsuits brought by former players who alleged that the NFL failedto inform them of and protect them from the risks of concussionsin football. The district court approved a class actionsettlement that covered over 20,000 retired players and releasedall concussion-related claims against the NFL. Objectors haveappealed that decision, arguing that class certification wasimproper and that the settlement was unfair. After thoroughreview, however, the Third Circuit concluded that the districtcourt was right to certify the class and approve the settlement.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 2, 2016 opinion isavailable at http://is.gd/0kzEwyfrom Leagle.com.

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Ahmed Hassan Seeks Class Certification---------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned AHMED HASSAN, Individuallyand on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONWIDECREDIT CORPORATION, D/B/A NATIONWIDE CREDIT CORPORATION OF VA, ANDPENDRICK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-530 (E.D. Wisc.),moves the Court to certify the proposed class in this case, andappoint the Plaintiff as its representative, and Ademi & O'Reilly,LLP as its Counsel; and further requests that the Court both staythe motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (andthe Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automaticbriefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material tobe filed with the motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative classrepresentative's individual stake in the litigation, the SeventhCircuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certificationmotion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing onthe certification motion until discovery could commence. Damascov. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion asdescribed in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not beburdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense whena one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay shouldsuffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

NEBRASKA: Court Approves Fees and Costs in "Leiting-Hall" Case--------------------------------------------------------------District Judge John M. Gerrard of the United States District Courtfor the District of Nebraska granted approval of the settlementagreement and granted the parties' joint motion for fees and costsin the case captioned, TAMI LEITING-HALL and ASHLEY DANKLEFF,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiffs, v. COURTNEY PHILLIPS, as Chief Executive Officer ofthe Nebraska Health and Human Services, and DOUGLAS WEINBERG, asDirector of the Division of Children and Family Services,Defendants, Case No. 4:14CV3155 (D. Neb.).

Plaintiffs brought the instant action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983alleging that Defendants Courtney Phillips, as Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services(or DHHS), and Douglas Weinberg, as Director of the Division ofChildren and Family Services, fail to provide SupplementalNutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits within the timeframes mandated by federal law to eligible households who fileinitial or renewal applications.

The action was filed on August 1, 2014, and on the same day theplaintiffs moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to certify aplaintiff class. In an order entered March 31, 2015, the Courtcertified the plaintiff class, adopting the Magistrate Judge'sfindings and recommendation to that effect. On December 23, theCourt was advised that the parties were approaching settlement. ByFebruary 24, 2016, the parties entered into a proposed Stipulationand Order of Settlement disposing of the plaintiffs' claims.Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court set a hearing on the fairness ofthe proposed settlement and reviewed the forms of notice submittedby the parties, approved them as to form, and approved their planfor directing notice to the class members.

Pending before the Court is the parties' proposed Stipulation andOrder of Settlement, and the parties' Joint Rule 23(h) Motion forFees and Costs.

In his Memorandum and Order dated April 1, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/eg1WCqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gerrard found that the appointed class representatives and their counsel fairly andadequately represented the interests of the class members inconnection with the settlement agreement and that the settlementagreement was the product of good-faith, arm's-length negotiationsby the class representatives, defendants, and their respectivecounsel and is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the bestinterests of class members. The form, content, and method ofdisseminating notice to the class members were adequate andreasonable and constituted the best notice practicable under thecircumstances, satisfying Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in formapauperis in the civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.Sec. 1983. Plaintiff is detained at the California Substance AbuseTreatment Facility (CSATF), in Corcoran, California, where theacts giving rise to his complaint occurred. He names a singledefendant: Dr. Ngozi Igbinosa. Plaintiff was diagnosed with ValleyFever in 2011 while housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison.Plaintiff is a member of a class action lawsuit in relation to hiscontraction of the disease. Defendant's husband, Felix Igbinosa,is a defendant in the class action lawsuit.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against him for filinga lawsuit against Defendant's husband by acting in deliberateindifference in responding to his medical needs.

In his Order dated April 13, 2016 available at http://is.gd/FJ17drfrom Leagle.com, Judge Seng found that Plaintiff fail to state aclaim upon which relief may be granted because he fails to allegefacts to show that Defendant acted with deliberate indifferenceand to state a claim for retaliation.

Plaintiff is given leave to amend within 30 days from the Order.

NORCOLD INC: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set---------------------------------------------------------Consumers Who Own or Owned a Norcold 1200 Series, N6 Series, or N8Series Gas-Absorption Refrigerator or Cooling Unit, Could GetBenefits From a Class Action Settlement.

Class Action Settlement Preliminarily Approved: There is aproposed settlement in two class action lawsuits against Norcold,Inc., Thetford Corporation, and The Dyson-Kissner-MoranCorporation ("Defendants") concerning three models of gasabsorption refrigerators (1200, N6 and N8 series) for use inrecreational vehicles ("RVs"), such as motorhomes, traveltrailers, and boats. Those persons included in the settlementclass have legal rights and options and deadlines by which theymust exercise them.

On March 29, 2016 the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California granted preliminary approval to theproposed class action settlement and authorized the sending of theNotice of Settlement to the members of the Settlement Class bymail and publication.

Fairness Hearing Scheduled: The Court has scheduled a fairnesshearing to occur on September 16, 2016 at 2:30 pm at the UnitedStates District Court in Santa Ana California at which time itwill consider whether to finally approve the settlement andwhether to grant Class Counsel's petition for attorneys' fees andcosts.

The Claims: Generally, the lawsuits claim that Defendants' 1200,N6 and N8 series gas-absorption refrigerators share a safety-related defect in the cooling unit which, in certaincircumstances, can cause the boiler tubes to corrode and leakflammable gas, exposing consumers to the risk of fire. Thelawsuits seek compensation for economic losses related to thepurchase of those Norcold Gas Absorption Refrigerators and Coolingunits. The lawsuits do not allege class claims for personalinjury, wrongful death or damage to property other than theallegedly defective Norcold Gas Absorption Refrigerators orCooling Units themselves. Defendants deny any wrongdoing and havedenied all allegations in the Complaint and asserted manydefenses. The Court has not issued any orders deciding which sidewas right was on the merits. Instead, after considerablediscovery and other motion practice, the parties decided to entermediation before an experienced former judge and ultimately, tosettle the class claims.

Who is In the Class: Subject to certain limited exclusions, thosepersons included in the Settlement Class are persons who:

Currently own, or formerly owned, a Norcold 1200 Series GasAbsorption Refrigerator or Cooling Unit that was manufacturedbetween January 1, 2002, and October 1, 2012; OR,Currently own a Norcold N6 Series Gas Absorption Refrigerator orCooling Unit, or N8 Series Gas Absorption Refrigerator or CoolingUnit that was manufactured between January 1, 2009, andDecember 31, 2013.

Those persons who do not fall within the class definition, are notpart of the Settlement Class and are not affected by thesettlement.

The settlement does not involve class claims for personal injury,wrongful death or damage to property other than to the Norcoldrefrigerator they own, owned, or may own in the future. Suchclaims are considered Reserved Claims and are not subject to therelease of claims.

Settlement Benefits: The settlement creates a $36 million MonetaryFund to resolve all eligible claims of class members and to fundall administrative costs and attorneys' fees that may ultimatelybe awarded by the Court. The Monetary Fund will be divided in themanner described in the settlement agreement's Allocation Plan,and be paid in four annual installments. Generally, to receive apayment, class members must timely submit a Claim Form by August26, 2016. Class members who file claim forms will be allotted acertain number of shares in the Settlement's Monetary Fund basedon factors attested to on their Claim Form such as model owned(1200, N8 or N6), whether they are a current or former owner, andwhether any repair expenses were incurred, and if so, in whatamount. The Allocation Plan is described more fully in thedetailed Notice and Claim Form available atwww.norcoldclassaction.com.

In addition, Defendants will provide, at Defendants' sole expense,a three-year extended warranty to class members who own N6 and N8Series gas absorption refrigerators manufactured between January1, 2009 and December 31, 2013, for a cooling unit that fails dueto a leak.

While Class counsel can petition to receive up to 25% of theMonetary Fund as attorneys' fees and to reimburse costs incurred,the final amount awarded will ultimately be determined by theCourt. Fee petitions will be filed by Class Counsel by August 11,2016.

Important Deadlines: It is important to note certain deadlinesassociated with the settlement approval process.

a. Claims Deadline: To receive a share of the Monetary Fundclass members must submit a Claim Form by August 26, 2016. Aseparate claim can be made for each Norcold 1200, N8 or N6refrigerator owned during the applicable time period. If classmembers do nothing they will remain in the Class, be subject tothe release, will not be able to sue Defendants about the issuesraised in the lawsuit, but may not receive the benefits for whichthey may be eligible.

b. Opt-Out Deadline: If class members do not want to be part ofthe settlement, they must exclude themselves (or "opt-out") byAugust 26, 2016. If class members opt-out, they will not beeligible to share in the settlement benefits and receive anypayment, but they will retain the right to sue Defendants on theclass claims asserted. Defendants, in turn, will retain alldefenses to those claims that they have. If class members do nottimely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, they will bebound by the settlement and be subject to the release.

c. Objection Deadline: Class members can object to all or partof the settlement by August 26, 2016, if they don't excludethemselves.

Enter Appearance: If class members prefer, they may enter anappearance through the legal counsel of their choice, at their ownexpense. Otherwise, they will be represented by court-appointedClass Counsel, Zimmerman Reed LLP.

Additional Information: A detailed Notice and Claim Formexplaining the foregoing in greater detail is available online atwww.norcoldclassaction.com The detailed Notice describes thesettlement, how class members may exclude themselves, submit aClaim Form and/or object to the proposed settlement in greaterdetail. The settlement website also contains copies of otherpertinent documents such as copies of the operative complaints,Defendants' answer and the full settlement agreement. Weencourage class members to read and review these materials.Interested persons may also call 1-877-449-8550 for furtherinformation or to request copies of the detailed Notice or ClaimForm.

(2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to:

All current and former employees of Defendant who during the previous three years worked over forty hours in any workweek but were not properly compensated for all of their overtime hours worked under the FLSA because of Defendant's automatic meal deduction policy, in the following departments: (1) back of the house food service, including cooks and stewards; (2) valet, including cashiers and valets; and (3) table games department; and

(3) requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the Defendant at any time from approximately April 26, 2013, through the present.

OSF HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Underfunded Benefit Pension Plans-----------------------------------------------------------Sheilar Smith, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalfof all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the OSF Plans,v. OSF Healthcare System, John and Jane Does 1-20, Members Of TheOsf Human Resources Committee, each an individual, and John andJane Does 21-40, each an individual, Case No. 3:16-cv-00467 (S.D.Ill., April 27, 2016), is an action for damages as a proximateresult of the Defendants' practice of underfunding its benefitpension plans.

The OSF Healthcare System operates a hospital corporation thatprimarily provides healthcare services in Illinois, with certainoperations in Michigan.

Between June 2011 and January 2014, Pashkin worked at the law firmCohen & Slamowitz, LLP (C&S), first as the assistant managingattorney, and then, for the final ten months of his tenure, as themanaging attorney. During Pashkin's employment at C&S, the firmwas (and may still be) engaged by Palisades as one of its debtcollection law firms.

Pashkin left C&S on January 17, 2014. At some point later thatyear, he began representing plaintiffs in the sorts of actionsagainst which he used to defend. Plaintiff Francis Olajide bringsclaims pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)against several Defendants, including Palisades Collection, LLC.In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, in 2006 and2007, one of Palisade's debt-collection law firms, Wolpoff &Abramson (W&A), sued and obtained (on Palisade's behalf) a defaultjudgment against him to recoup a debt of $502.15, excludinginterest, that Plaintiff allegedly owed to AT&T.

Plaintiff alleges that the process server who had supposedlyserved the summons and complaint, Luis Agostini, did not actuallyeffect proper service; indeed, Plaintiff alleges that Agostiniconducted so-called "sewer service" by fraudulently representingthat he had served an unidentified co-tenant of Plaintiff's. As aresult -- and because Plaintiff did not, in fact, even have anAT&T account -- Plaintiff did not learn of the action or judgmentagainst him until roughly seven years later, after Palisades hiredanother firm, Houslanger & Associates (H&A), to enforce thejudgment. After H&A was notified of the possible issues withservice of the complaint, H&A agreed to vacate the defaultjudgment and dismiss the action. Plaintiff claims that, based onthe foregoing, W&A, H&A, Palisades, and Alta (Palisades's parentcompany) are liable for violations of the FDCPA. Plaintiff alsoseeks to pursue the action on behalf of a class.

On December 18, 2015, Palisades moved to disqualify Pashkin fromserving as Plaintiff's attorney in this case, based on his prioremployment at C&S.

In the Opinion and Order dated April 12, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/Q6m7Nffrom Leagle.com, Judge Furman found that the arguments presented by the Defendant is not a basis for hisdisqualification, as he represents only Plaintiff and owes noduties of loyalty to putative class members.

An Australian law firm, Piper Alderman, has offered to file acivil action suit to recover over AU$170 million transferredoverseas by Nirmal Bhangoo, the alleged mastermind of the mammothRs49,100 crore ponzi scheme that has duped over 50 million Indiansover a 25-year period. These investors were sold fractions ofland in projects being developed by two Pearls group companies--Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd (PACL) and Pearls Golden ForestLtd (PGFL). An extensive investigation in Australia byinvestigator Niall Coburn and the local media there has uncoveredtransfer of at least AU$170 million to companies in Australia,Hong Kong and Singapore that are directly or indirectly controlledby Nirmal Bhangoo, founder and brain behind the Pearlsgroup.

Many Indian investors, angry with the slow investigation andunexplained delay in freezing and recovering their money, haveformed two associations representing over 60,000 people duped byPearls and are attempting civil action in Australia to get backtheir money. They are PACL Employees and Customers ProtectionForum and the Janlok Prathishtan Sanghata Committee (India).

The associations hired Temple Law and Nayak Associates to handletheir case. These lawyers, in turn, approached Niall Coburn andPiper Alderman to pursue the class action in Australia to recovertheir funds. On February 2, 2016, based on an order of theSupreme Court of India (SC), the Securities & Exchange Board ofIndia (SEBI) had constituted a committee headed by Justice RMLodha to oversee the liquidation and sale of Pearls group's assetsand refund of money to investors at the earliest, preferablywithin six months from the date of the order.

Hence, Piper Alderman, the law firm, has written to Justice Lodhaand the SEBI chairman, offering to file cross-border proceedingsin Australia to bring overseas assets under control, liquidatethem and get back investors' money. The law firm's letter saysthat Niall Coburn, who has been investigating PACL assets inAustralia for two months, has traced assets of around $170 millionand there may be "more assets held in complex structures." Itprovides an extensive list of assets that have been traced inAustralia through their investigation, explains the connectionwith Mr. Bhangoo's family and even provides a chart of the groupand its linkages. These include AU$100 million in properties suchas Sheraton Mirage Resort (Sheraton) on the Gold Coast through acompany called Pearls Australasia Mirage 1 Pty Ltd incorporated inOctober 2009, Pearls Infrastructure Projects Limited and severalhomes and properties that are connected through Nirmal Bhangoo'schildren.

Worryingly, Piper Alderman says that these foreign assets are notunder receivership in India and can be dissipated during the slowinvestigation. In fact, the Sheraton is already listed for sale.Shockingly, it says that the Indian government has not even filedapplications to "preserve the investor funds in otherjurisdictions, such as Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong."

An international class action of this type, with approval from theregulator, has never been attempted before. Even if theAustralian legal process is swift and enables recovery of assets,the government will have to evolve a mechanism to distribute themoney among an estimated 50 million investors. The task ishumungous and SEBI is still in the process of collating investordata with proof of investment. It is, however, unclear why thegovernment is not invoking the draconian provisions of thePrevention of Money Laundering Act or acting swiftly to preservethe overseas assets of Nirmal Bhangoo's family.

Meanwhile, the Pearls group, which has been adept at gaming thelegal system for over 20 years, has already enlisted a phalanx ofexpensive and influential lawyers to continue its fight. Thereare also dark rumours about powerful people trying to derailaction against the group. It is also curious that the PACL scamhas evoked little interest in the Indian media, despite themassive sum involved; it is the Australian press that unearthedthe massive transfer of funds and assets owned abroad. Will theLodha committee really succeed in getting investors even a part oftheir investment back? Or will this be another lackadaisicalpursuit that yields no result?

PENNSYLVANIA: SEPTA Faces Class Action Over Background Checks-------------------------------------------------------------P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports thata man claiming his offer of employment as a bus driver with theSoutheastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority was revokedbecause of his criminal history has filed a class action lawsuitagainst SEPTA in federal court.

Frank Long alleged in his lawsuit that SEPTA routinely violatesthe Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Pennsylvania CriminalHistory Record Information Act by failing to give "clear andconspicuous" written notice to job applicants that it conductsbackground checks and disqualifies candidates based on "unrelatedfelony convictions."

The suit was filed on behalf of Mr. Long by a consortium ofgroups, including the Public Interest Law Center, PhiladelphiaLawyers for Social Equity, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil RightsUnder Law and law firms Willig, Williams & Davidson inPhiladelphia and Outten & Golden in New York.

Mr. Long, who was employed as a school bus driver at the time heapplied for the SEPTA job in 2014, was verbally offered theposition by a SEPTA recruiter, contingent upon a background check.That offer was rescinded after Long disclosed that he had acriminal record, specifically, convictions in 1997 for possessionand manufacture of a controlled substance stemming from a 1994arrest, according to Mr. Long's complaint.

Mr. Long had to complete a form authorizing SEPTA to perform abackground check, however, Mr. Long argued that the form was"unclear and inconspicuous" and was not solely a disclosure thatconsumer information about him could be gathered.

The complaint also said, "Mr. Long's criminal history was notrelevant to the bus operator position for which he applied forreasons including the nature of the crime, the age of theconviction, and the years Mr. Long has been in the generalpopulation without any further conviction."

The prospective class will cover all applicants who have soughtjobs with SEPTA and have had consumer reports about them reviewedby SEPTA without a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writingbefore the agency sought the report.

The criminal background aspect of the class definition includesindividuals who were denied employment with SEPTA for vehicleoperator positions on the basis of drug convictions more thanseven years old.

Both classes cover applicants who have been denied employmentwithin two years of the filing of the complaint through the dateof final judgment.

Mr. Long's complaint said that joining all of those potentialclass members in the litigation would be impractical given thesheer size, though a precise number is not known.

Therefore, commonality would be established by considering whetherthe plaintiff meets the criteria of the classes, along withwhether SEPTA was in willful noncompliance with FCRA and CHRIA.

Additionally, "Mr. Long will fairly and adequately represent andprotect the interests of the class members because his interestscoincide with, and are not antagonistic to, the interests of theclass members he seeks to represent," the complaint said.

Ryan A. Hancock, of counsel and chair of the employment lawdepartment of Willig Williams, is one of the attorneysrepresenting Long.

"What we're looking to accomplish is for SEPTA to come into thecompliance with the Criminal History Record Information Act," hesaid.

In its April 12 decision, the federal appeals court vacated thejudgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofNew York.

The three-judge panel concluded the district court's rationalesfor excluding the plaintiffs' expert on loss causation and damages-- Daniel Fischel, a former University of Chicago Law School dean-- were "inadequate to justify excluding it in its entirety."

The Second Circuit, in its 63-page opinion, also concluded thatthe district court erred in its earlier summary judgment rulingthat no reasonable jury could find Pfizer liable for certainstatements made by companies that owned the drugs before Pfizer,including G.D. Searle & Co. and Pharmacia Corp.

"Plaintiffs' evidence of Pfizer's authority over the eightstatements by Searle and Pharmacia employees to various newspaperand journal articles fares slightly better, however," the panelwrote. "In broad terms, the eight statements all conveyed thatthere were no increased cardiovascular risks associated withCelebrex.

"To be clear, there is no dispute that Searle and Pharmaciaemployees, not Pfizer employees, actually delivered the statementsto the press. Nor is there any evidence that these employees heldthemselves out as representing Pfizer. And 'in the ordinary case,'the fact that the statements were attributed to Searle orPharmacia employees 'is . . . strong evidence that [the]statement[s] w[ere] made by -- and only by -- the party to whom[they were] attributed.'"

The panel continued, "Nevertheless, we find that there is amaterial question of fact whether the present case deviates fromthe ordinary case. Notwithstanding that the eight statements tothe press were attributed to Searle and Pharmacia employees,Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to permit areasonable jury to conclude that Pfizer had 'ultimate authority'over the statements' 'content and whether and how to communicate'them."

The shareholders, who filed their lawsuit in 2004, allege Pfizerconcealed the risks associated with Celebrex and Bextra. Both areconsidered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, used to treatchronic pain and inflammation.

The class, which includes investors who bought Pfizer stockbetween Oct. 31, 2000 and Oct. 19, 2005, alleges that when themarket eventually learned of the risks associated with the twodrugs, the value of Pfizer's shares fell by about $70 billion.

Bextra was available by prescription up until 2005, when the Foodand Drug Administration requested Pfizer withdraw the drug fromthe U.S. market. The FDA cited "potential increased risk forserious cardiovascular (CV) adverse events" and an "increased riskof serious skin reactions," among other things.

The drug maker agreed to suspend sales and marketing of Bextra,but said it disagreed with the FDA's view of the drug's risks andbenefits.

In September 2009, Pfizer also agreed to pay $2.3 billion toresolve an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice intothe illegal promotion of certain pharmaceuticals, includingBextra.

The FDA allowed Celebrex, closely related to Bextra, to remain onthe market; however, it now includes strict warnings about therisk of heart attacks and strokes.

The shareholders' lawsuit, as result of the Second Circuit'sdecision, now returns to the Southern District of New York.

Pfizer said in a statement it has "appropriately communicatedaccurate and science-based information about its medicines toinvestors and the public at all times."

On May 15, 2003, petitioner Arnold Harrison, a resident of KanawhaCounty, West Virginia, purchased a 2003 Porsche Carrera 4S Coupefrom an approved Porsche dealer in Texas. He alleges that, onSeptember 8, 2013, while he was operating the vehicle in areasonably foreseeable manner, the vehicle suffered engine failureresulting in a complete loss of power. Petitioner filed hisoriginal complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on June26, 2014, in which he alleged breach of express warranty;deceptive trade practices under West Virginia and Texas consumerprotection laws; and breach of implied warranty ofmerchantability.

Porsche filed a motion to dismiss petitioner's complaint underRule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, or,in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. A hearing onthe motion was conducted on October 16, 2014. By order enteredNovember 3, 2014, the parties agreed that petitioner wouldvoluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, his breach of expresswarranty claim. Thereafter, on November 20, 2014, the circuitcourt entered an order that granted petitioner's motion to amendhis complaint and also ordered that Porsche's previously filedmotion to dismiss be held in abeyance.

On December 10, 2014, petitioner filed an amended complaint inwhich he alleged deceptive trade practices under West Virginia andTexas consumer protection laws, breach of implied warranty ofmerchantability, and property damage due to product defect (i.e.,strict liability). Porsche filed a second motion to dismiss, whichwas granted by order entered April 1, 2015.

On appeal, Petitioner, by counsel John H. Skaggs, argues that thecircuit court erred in holding that his claim for breach ofimplied warranty of merchantability was time barred even though itwas filed less than two years after discovery of the defect andthat the case falls within the exception provided for in WestVirginia Code Sec. 46-2-725(2).

In his Opinion dated April 12, 2016, available athttp://is.gd/Z1eS5cfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ketchum found that no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error and thememorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order isappropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Settles TCPA Class Action for $18 Million-------------------------------------------------------------Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM, reports that Portfolio RecoveryAssociates LLC (PRAA) will pay $18 million to resolvemultidistrict litigation accusing the debt collection company ofviolating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by makingautodialed phone calls to consumers without their consent,according to documents filed on April 25 in California federalcourt.

In this instance the MDL originally involves four (4) separateactions. The various actions that were consolidated in the MDLall involved allegations that PRAA violated the TCPA by placingdebt collection calls to consumers' cellular phones using anAutomated Telephone Dialing System (ATDS).

The Plaintiffs in the case (In re Portfolio Recovery Associates,LLC, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, Case No. 3:11-md-02295, United States District Court, Southern District ofCalifornia) filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval ofClass Action Settlement and Class Certification that lays out theterms of the proposed settlement. A hearing to approve theproposed settlement is set for June 6, 2016. The Defendants inthe case are the aforementioned PRAA and PRA Group, Inc.

The Proposed Settlement

The proposed settlement consists of the following:

Defendants will pay $18,000,000. Settlement Class members willreceive a pro rata share of the balance of that amount afterpayment of notice and administration costs not to exceed$3,325,000, attorney's fees not to exceed $5.4 million, litigationcosts, and incentive awards for each of the named Plaintiffs notto exceed $6,250 each.

The Agreement defines the Class as follows: All natural personsresiding in the United States who received one or more telephonecalls from an autodialer or a predictive dialer operated byDefendants to such person's cellular telephone number betweenDecember 23, 2006 and July 1, 2013, inclusive, and who are listedin the csv data file titled pra_outbound_dial_list_20140304.zipproduced to Plaintiffs' counsel. (The data file identifiesapproximately 7.4 million Class Members as meeting the definitionabove.)

A consent decree entered into with this settlement provides aninjunction that prohibits PRA from using its Avaya ProactiveContact Dialer to place calls to any person's cellular telephonenumbers without prior express consent.

Class Members will receive an opportunity to opt-out of the Class.Those that do not ("Settlement Class Members") are eligible toclaim and receive a pro rata share of the remaining common fund;the recovery for each Settlement Class Member who submits a validclaim will depend on the total number of valid claims. There isno minimum or maximum amount that any Settlement Class Member isentitled to receive.

Any remaining funds will go to the designated Cy Pres Recipient.The Parties propose any cy pres relief be paid to the NationalAssociation of Consumer Advocates, in particular for its work withthe Federal Communications Commission to ensure that consumers'rights are maintained under the TCPA. No funds shall revert toDefendants.

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Deodorant Products--------------------------------------------------------------Gregory Johnson, on behalf of himself and all other similarlysituated individuals v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-02302-SK (N.D. Cal., April 27, 2016), arises out of theDefendant's defective Old Spice deodorant products, which containa mix of chemicals that, when applied to the skin, produce asignificant risk of injury, such as rashes, redness, blisters,aches, and burns.

The Procter & Gamble Co. operates a consumer goods company withits headquarters and principal place of business in Cincinnati,Ohio.

The Court directed the Parties to file a joint proposed notice tothe potential opt-in collective action members and a plan toprovide said notice by May 16, 2016, and to include Citizens'mortgage loan officers who, during at least one work week sinceNovember 23, 2012, worked more than 40 hours and earnedcommissions, non-discretionary bonuses, or other premiums.

REPUBLIC OF TEA: Recalls Organic Turmeric Ginger Green Tea----------------------------------------------------------The Republic of Tea is dedicated to the health and wellness ofeach and every citizen (customer). As such, we are issuing avoluntary recall of our Organic Turmeric Ginger Green Tea inresponse to a possible health risk. There have been no illnessesreported in connection with this voluntary recall. No other teasare impacted by this recall.

The Republic of Tea was notified by one of our suppliers, of thepossibility that one lot of its organic ginger ingredient may becontaminated with Salmonella bacteria. Salmonella is an organism,which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in youngchildren, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immunesystems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experiencefever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.

The organic ginger supplier reported this finding from anothercustomer. The Republic of Tea and the organic ginger supplier haveconducted their own investigations and have tested numeroussamples of organic ginger by accredited independent third partylaboratories and confirmed the absence of Salmonella.

Despite the fact it was confirmed that there is no Salmonella inthe organic ginger that was tested, The Republic of Tea is takingthe precautionary measure to recall the following Organic TurmericGinger Green Tea:

Citizens may return Organic Turmeric Ginger Green Tea to TheRepublic of Tea for a replacement tea, or for a full refund."There is absolutely no evidence that our tea has beencontaminated. We are taking this preventive, cautious measurebecause we want our citizens to feel comfortable when drinking ourpremium quality teas and herbs," said Todd B. Rubin, Minister ofEvolution at The Republic of Tea. "The health and safety of ourcitizens is our number one priority and we will not take potentialhealth risks lightly. This voluntary recall is the first in ournearly quarter-century history."

For questions and concerns teasafety@republicoftea.com or call 1-800-298-4832, Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:00am-5:00pmCST.

The Republic of Tea enriches people's lives through its premiumteas, education and innovation, as it emphasizes a "Sip by SipRather Than Gulp by Gulp" lifestyle. Founded in 1992, The Republicof Tea sparked a specialty tea revolution. Today the brand offersan unequaled selection of the highest-quality teas, herbal blends,books and nature-inspired sip ware, available exclusively atspecialty retailers throughout the U.S. Further, The Republic ofTea is mindful of how its actions impact the greater community andactively supports worthy organizations like Action Against Hunger,The Ethical Tea Partnership, The Prostate Cancer Foundation,Xerces Society and The Whole Planet Foundation. Certificationsinclude Demeter USA Certified Biodynamic, Fair Tradecertification, Gluten-Free certification, Non-GMO Projectverification, OU Kosher certification, Rainforest Alliancecertification and USDA Organic certification. For moreinformation, please visit www.REPUBLICofTEA.comdisclaimer icon orcall 1-800-298-4832. Follow The Republic of Tea on Twitter attwitter.com/republicofteadisclaimer icon and Like us on Facebookat www.facebook.com/RepublicofTea

On October 5, 2015, the parties advised the Court that settlementwas imminent as to some of the named plaintiffs. Around two weekslater, 199 of the 205 plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal of theirclaims with prejudice. That left six plaintiffs remaining: BelindaWilson, Carole Bellman, Dan Deters, Lydia Douglas, Ezell James,and Verne Vollrath.

Counsel had already moved to withdraw as to Wilson and moved towithdraw as to Bellman, Deters, Douglas, James, and Vollrath onthe day that the stipulation was entered.

Magistrate Judge Wilkerson granted those motions to withdraw andfurther advised each of the non-settling plaintiffs that he or sheneeded to appear via new counsel or inform the Court of his or herintention to proceed pro se in writing by a specified date -- forWilson by September 18, 2015, and for the rest by November 20,2015.

Schnucks moved to dismiss as to the non-settling plaintiffs,claiming that each failed to prosecute his or her case and complywith the Court's directives.

In his Memorandum and Order dated April 12, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/9Ap0gOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reagan found that the non-settling defendants have failed to abide by the Court's ordersand move forward with the case and dismissed the claims of Wilson,Bellman, Deters, Douglas, James, and Vollrath with prejudice.

SMALLS ELECTRICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Project Balance Due---------------------------------------------------------------Bruce Supply Corp., on behalf of itself and all other personssimilarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trustsof which smalls Electrical construction, Inc., is a trustee v.Smalls Electrical Construction, Inc. and Jeffrey J. Smalls, CaseNo. 506796/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., April 28, 2016), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to pay balance due and owing of$302,461.12 for the improvement project known as PortAuthority Bus Terminal, Replacement of Fire Pump.

The Defendants are engaged in the contracting business, furnishinglabor and materials in connection with public contracts involvingthe improvement of real property in the state of New York.

SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Zachariah Pinkney Seeks Class Certification-------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ZACHARIAH PINKNEY,Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, LP, Case No. 16-cv-532 (E.D. Wisc.),moves the Court to certify the proposed class in this case, andappoint the Plaintiff as its representative, and Ademi & O'Reilly,LLP as its Counsel; and further requests that the Court both staythe motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (andthe Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automaticbriefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material tobe filed with the motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative classrepresentative's individual stake in the litigation, the SeventhCircuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certificationmotion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing onthe certification motion until discovery could commence. Damascov. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion asdescribed in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not beburdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense whena one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay shouldsuffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Faces "Hicks" Suit Over Royalty Underpayment-----------------------------------------------------------------Charles Hicks, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Southwestern Energy Company, SWN Production(Arkansas), LLC, Southwestern Energy Services Company, and DesotoGathering Company, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00226-SWW (E.D. Ark.,April 27, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' underpayment ofroyalties on natural gas from wells in the geological formationreferred to as the Fayetteville Shale Play in Arkansas throughimproper accounting methods such as starting with a price that istoo low and taking deductions for marketing, gathering,compression and dehydration which are collectively referred to as"post-production expenses" ("PPE's") and by failing to account forand pay royalties.

The Defendants own and operate an oil and natural gas companybased in Houston, Texas.

Defendants are accused of misstatements and omissions as signersof the Registration Statement and/or as an issuer, statutoryseller, of the shares during their initial public offering.Defendant claims that the price of Sunrun common stock wasartificially and materially inflated at the time of the offering.

Defendants are accused of misstatements and omissions as signersof the Registration Statement and/or as an issuer, statutoryseller, of the shares during its initial public offering.Defendant claims that the price of Sunrun common stock wasartificially and materially inflated at the time of the offering.

(1) granting conditional certification of the action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

(2) expediting discovery production by the Defendants, within 15 days of the Court Order, of a complete list of each and every person, who is a current or former employee of the Defendant and Allstar Animal Removal, Inc. who was employed by the Defendants as an Animal Control Technician, or position with similar job description however titled, who were paid on a commission basis, at any time between June 23, 2009, and the present, including the last known home address, telephone number, and e-mail address of such persons;

(3) requiring the Defendant to format and produce on an expedited basis a list of each such person listed alphabetically from "A" to "Z" and with each person's last known home address, telephone number, and e-mail address in a separate field corresponding with each name; and

(4) permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to mail a Court- Approved Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt into this collective action by filing a Notice of Consent to Opt-In.

The Plaintiff alleges that on numerous occasions, he, the opt-inPlaintiffs, and putative class members worked greater than 40hours in a work week but were not paid the mandated minimum wageor the overtime compensation required by the FLSA.

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Says----------------------------------------------------------Benjamin Ciotti, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Synchrony Financial and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,and each of them, Case No. 3:16-cv-01033-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., April28, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placingunsolicited calls to telephones of consumers nationwide.

SYSTEMS4PT LLC: Byer Clinic Seeks Class Certification-----------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BYER CLINIC OF CHIROPRACTIC,LTD., an Illinois corporation, individually and as therepresentative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.SYSTEMS4PT, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-04886 (N.D.Ill.), asks the Court to certify this class:

All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) from which Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.

The Plaintiff anticipates that the proposed class definition willchange after discovery defines the precise contours of the classand the advertisements that were sent to it and the proposed classmembers. The Plaintiff requests leave to submit a brief and otherevidence in support of this motion after discovery about the classelements has been completed.

TD BANK: Sued in N.J. Over Penny Arcade Machine Shortchanging-------------------------------------------------------------Regina C. Filannino-Restifo, on behalf of herself and all otherssimilarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-02374-JBS-JS(D.N.J., April 27, 2016), is brought on behalf of all depositcustomers of TD Bank who have been harmed through the continuedshortchanging of TD Bank's Penny Arcade machines.

TGI FRIDAY'S: Bid to Dismiss Count I of "Williams" Suit Denied--------------------------------------------------------------In the case captioned, JASON C. WILLIAMS, individually and onBehalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TGIFRIDAY'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-1469 RLW (E.D. Mo.),District Judge Ronnie L. White of the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Missouri denied in part Defendant'sMotion to Dismiss Count I of Complaint and stayed the action inits entirety.

From time to time, TGIF markets its restaurants and makes offersvia text messages to customers who affirmatively agree to receivethem in connection with a customer loyalty and rewards programcalled the Give Me More Stripes (GMMS) program. Williams allegesthat TGIF sent these text messages en masse to Plaintiff and themembers of the proposed class without prior express writtenconsent.

In the motion, TGIF claims that Williams' Complaint fails to statea claim for relief. TGIF asserts that Williams' theory ofliability fails as a matter of law because Williams is challengingwhether his enrollment in the GMMS program qualifies as a"signature" that satisfies the FCC's definition of "prior expresswritten consent."

In response, Williams asserts that he has alleged sufficient factsto maintain his claim. First, he has alleged that the textmessages were sent en masse, which is sufficient to allege to thatthe messages were sent via an ATDS. Williams states that the HobbsAct precludes the Court from determining the propriety of theFCC's regulations regarding the consent requirement.

In his Memorandum and Order dated April 12, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/E4rurrfrom Leagle.com, Judge White found that Williams states a claim and that as the present stage oflitigation, Williams' Complaint states a claim for which reliefcan be granted under the TCPA and that a stay is warranted whilethe dispositive legal issue is decided. Every 90 days, beginningJuly 12, 2016, the parties shall advise the Court of the status ofthe appeals from the FCC's Declaratory Ruling and Order before theD.C. Circuit.

THINGS REMEMBERED: Class Certification of 7 Subclasses Sought-------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled KIRAN KAUR and RebeccaLagassey, individually, and on behalf of other members of thegeneral public similarly situated v. THINGS REMEMBERED, INC., aDelaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C14-05544 VC (N.D. Cal.), moves for class certification of thelawsuit.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent seven subclasses involving over3,100 non-exempt, hourly employees who have worked for theDefendant in its Things Remembered stores in California and who,as a result of the Defendant's alleged uniform illegal policiesand practices, have been subject to wage statement, regular rateof pay, meal period, and rest break violations of the CaliforniaLabor Code and related case law.

In their memorandum of points and authorities in support of theMotion, the Plaintiffs argue that class certification isappropriate because the Defendant's liability as to each subclasscan be established by common proof. The Plaintiffs contend thattheir seven theories of liability are each amenable to classtreatment because they are predicated on Defendant's statewide,uniform policies and practices, which raise predominant commonquestions of law or fact that will yield common answers based oncommon proof.

The Plaintiffs' seven theories of liability and the correspondingsubclasses are:

(1) The Wage Statement Theory (Re: Wage Statement Subclass): Defendant has maintained a class-wide policy and practice of knowingly and intentionally issuing incomplete and/or inaccurate wage statements that failed to list the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, failed to list all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked, and failed to include the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, as required by California Labor Code section 226;

(2) The Regular Rate Theory (Re: Regular Rate Subclass): Defendant has maintained a class-wide policy and practice of failing to pay meal period premiums based on the correct regular rate of pay as required under California Labor Code Section 512,3 IWC Wage Order 7-2001 subd. 11 and related case law;

(3) The Meal Period Waiver Theory (Re: Meal Period Waiver Subclass): Defendant has maintained a class-wide policy and practice of failing to provide a meal period to employees who work between five and six hour shifts, relying on an "automatic" meal period waiver which is neither consented to nor mutually agreed to, and therefore invalid as a matter of law;

(4) The Brinker Rest Break Policy Theory (Re: Brinker Rest Break Policy Subclass): Defendant has maintained a facially illegal class-wide rest break policy in that it only authorizes subclass members to take one rest period for every 3.5 hours worked; thus, Defendant does not authorize and permit second rest periods for subclass members who worked shifts of more than 6 and less than 7 hours in length, as required by IWC Wage Order 7-2001 subd. 12 and related case law;

(5) On-Duty Rest Break Theory (Re: Single Coverage Subclass): Defendant has maintained a class-wide policy and practice of scheduling one employee to work certain shifts on a "single coverage" basis, and as a consequence fails to provide subclass members with legally compliant rest periods during which they are relieved of all duty as required by IWC Wage Order 7-2001 subd. 12 and related case law.

(6) Understaffing Theory (Re: Meal Break Subclass): Defendant maintains labor budget policies that result in chronically understaffed stores in California while at the same time implementing employee review and evaluation criteria which impede and discourage subclass members from taking timely, uninterrupted and compliant meal and rest breaks.

(7) Derivative Claims Theory: The Complaint and proposed FAC include claims pursuant to Labor Code sections 510, 1198, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 201, 202, 203 and 204 and Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. These claims are entirely or partially derivative of the putative class claims at issue in this Motion and should be certified along with them.

The plaintiff, Andre Corbin, argued before the district court thathe was entitled to relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) and various California state employment laws for $15.02 inlost wages and one minute of uncompensated time. $15.02represents the total amount of compensation that Corbin alleged hehas lost due to TWEAN's compensation policy that rounds allemployee time stamps to the nearest quarter-hour. One minuterepresents the total amount of time for which Corbin also allegedhe was not compensated as he once mistakenly opened an auxiliarycomputer program before clocking into TWEAN's timekeeping softwareplatform.

The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment toTWEAN. The court determined that because the company's roundingpolicy was neutral on its face and in practice, TWEAN's policycomplied with the federal rounding regulation, and Corbin's $15.02in lost wages did not present an issue of material fact. Thecourt also held that the one minute of uncompensated time Corbinspent logging into an auxiliary computer program before logginginto TWEAN's timekeeping software was de minimis as a matter oflaw.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that Corbin has failed todemonstrate the existence of a material fact as to his roundingclaim, his logging-in claim, or his derivative state claims.Additionally, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court didnot err by limiting consideration of Corbin's rounding claim tothe time period after the implementation of the Avaya/Kronostimekeeping system. Finally, the Ninth Circuit concluded that thethere si no need for the district court to consider whetherCorbin's rounding claim can form the basis for a viable classaction proceeding.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's May 2, 2016 opinion isavailable at http://is.gd/y4984Tfrom Leagle.com.

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Want to Prevent Trump From Facing Trial-----------------------------------------------------------------The Daily Beast reports that as a last-ditch effort to keep DonaldTrump from the witness stand in a pending Trump University trial,his lawyers have come up with an inventive defense that, ofcourse, includes the Clintons.

On the first day of the Republican National Committee convention,a set of Donald Trump's lawyers will be in a California courtroom.

That's where a district judge on April 26 struck down a Hail Marydefense from Trump's legal team in an attempt to prevent theirclient from facing trial in a lawsuit against his now defunctTrump University.

The mogul faces a class action lawsuit in the state for his mid-2000s project which promised to make ordinary people experts inreal estate, earn them tons of money, and provide expert seminarsfrom Trump himself. None of which actually happened.

Meanwhile, in New York, Trump is also facing a lawsuit from theAttorney General which will proceed to trial this year as well.As he and his lawyers spin their wheels to escape litigation -- onboth coasts -- that could impact the presidential contest, thingsare not going so well.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel set a hearing for July 18 todetermine if the civil case in California will proceed, whichcould put the spotlight back on the lawsuit while Trump fights foror is accepting his party's nomination.

Trump also previously stated in February that because Judge Curiel"happens to be Spanish," he might be biased against him due to thecandidate's immigration platform.

And it's unlikely that his lawyers' latest motion to dismiss didtheir case any favors.

Mr. Trump's lawyer, Daniel Petrocelli, a flashy Los Angelesattorney who once beat O.J. Simpson in a civil case andunsuccessfully represented Enron's CEO, filed the defense motionto try to tie the 2016 presidential race to the civil suit. Init, he wrote that if the Clinton Global Initiative -- a consortiumthe convenes leaders to discuss solutions to problems founded byPresident Bill Clinton -- can market a yearly conference as a"university," so can Trump's creation.

"In all but a handful of states there are no limitations on theuse of the word university in a business name," Mr. Petrocelliwrites in the document first obtained by the Hollywood Reporter."As a result, educational companies and business organizations ofall types frequently use the word 'university' to market theirproducts or services despite having no affiliation with a degree-granting university."

Mr. Petrocelli told The Daily Beast he was not in a position totalk about the case.

This semantics debate goes on for a few more pages.In addition to CGI University, which is billed as a yearly meetingof "global young leaders," Mr. Petrocelli included McDonald'sHamburger University and an ad from Farmers Insurance featuringactor J.K. Simmons as a fictional professor, as evidence hisclient was being held to a different standard.

The problem with the comparison is that there are majordifferences in the way in which these institutions are marketed.For instance, CGI University calls itself "a meeting wherestudents, university representatives, topic experts, andcelebrities come together to discuss and develop innovativesolutions to pressing global challenges," on its website.

As for Hamburger University, the institution has a proven trackrecord of training people to become restaurant managers andoperators of various branches of the company. Its Shanghai campushad a reported selection rate of 1 percent in 2015, making it moreselective than Harvard University. Additionally, HamburgerUniversity provides American students with the opportunity to earncredits towards a bachelor's degree at 1,600 colleges oruniversities across the country.

Not only did Trump University fall short in the educationdepartment, it did not even provide students with the opportunityto meet the straw-haired mogul as promised, but rather gave outcardboard cutouts of his likeness.

The University of Farmers has been recognized among the bettercorporate training organizations in the world by Training magazinefor four consecutive years. It even got inducted into the 2014hall of fame for the magazine alongside Microsoft, Deloitte, IBM,and General Mills.

"The University of Farmers strives to deliver the best trainedpeople in our industry through world-class facilities offeringoutstanding state-of-the-art curricula for Farmers agents, claimspersonnel and management," Farmers Chief Learning Officer AnnetteThompson said at the time. "Farmers is proud of its instructors,curriculum development personnel, and support staff. They are thebest in the industry."

Neither Farmers nor CGI returned calls for comment about theirinclusion in Petrocelli's motion.

The broader problem with motions like these -- summary judgments -- is that they seek to get a court opinion for the defendant (inthis case Trump) without the plaintiff being able to convince ajury. So the facts have to be crystal clear.

"As a general matter, summary judgment is difficult to obtain,"CUNY law professor Frank Beale explained to The Daily Beast. "Itwould be a bold move for the Court to accept Trump's depiction ofthe facts without giving the plaintiff the chance to contest someof the statements contained in the summary judgment brief."

Mr. Beale said he doubted the motion would be granted becausesummary judgments typically occur when "there is no seriousdispute about the facts."

On top of this shaky defense, Trump was specifically warned by theNew York State Education Department about using the term"university" in conjunction with his company which functionedessentially as an upsell scheme modeled after tactics developed bynotorious fraudsters.

"Almost immediately after Trump founded Trump University, theNew York State Education Department ("NYSED") wrote to DonaldTrump on May 27, 2005, warning him that using the name"University" was illegal without a license, and asked Mr. Trump tostop using the name "Trump University," attorney Art Cohen wrotein his initial 2013 suit. "Instead of complying, Defendant'sagents created a fictitious office in Dover, Delaware, and thenDefendant continued to brazenly operate illegally out of his 40Wall Street office in New York, New York for five years."

At the time, Mr. Trump was also compelled to refund all the moneystudents had paid to the institution or face disciplinary actionas a consequence.

He did not comply.

"Defendant did not give students refunds, but did stop offeringand selling Live Events shortly thereafter in or about August2010. However, Defendant has made multiple statements that heintends to resume Trump University courses in the future," Cohenwrites.

When asked about Mr. Petrocelli's argument, the law offices ofZeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, co-counsel on the two pending class-action lawsuits against Trump University in California, simplysaid "no comment."

Mr. Trump himself has said that he doesn't want the litigation toproceed in the middle of an already insane Republican primary,while at the same time making clear he has no intention ofsettling the suit.

"I'm going to win that easily," Mr. Trump said of the lawsuitduring a press conference on April 27.

According to a recent estimate from Bloomberg, Mr. Trump has beensued 72 times in federal court since 2000 and has settled 35percent of the time.

Meanwhile, across the country, Mr. Trump may also have to appearin New York court over a lingering suit from Attorney General EricSchneiderman which alleges he scammed students with his TrumpUniversity.

New York Justice Cynthia Kern decided on April 27 that the suitwhich alleges that Trump University ripped students off of acollective $40 million will go to trial. Mr. Schneidermanpreviously asked Justice Kern to rule on the matter without goingto trial because the evidence was so clear. Yet some movement onthe years-long suit was better than nothing.

"I am very pleased the judge has indicated her intention to moveas expeditiously as possible to trial, as thousands ofMr. Trump's alleged victims have been waiting years for relieffrom his fraud," Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement provided toThe Daily Beast. "We believe that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sexton willbe essential witnesses at trial. As we will prove in court,Donald Trump and his sham for-profit college defrauded thousandsof students out of millions of dollars."

As Mr. Trump continues his likely march toward the Republicannomination, picking up delegates from five state wins onApril 27, he has tried to make his fight over Trump Universityequivalent to a fight for the future of America.

"And you know what? The United States should fight back also,"Trump said, shrouded in darkness in a video made by his campaignin March. "We shouldn't just be settlers, we should fight back.And do what's right."

In this instance, Trump University customers would seem to agree.

TYSON FOODS: Statistical Evidence Can Be Used in Class Action-------------------------------------------------------------Jennifer Parent, writing for Employment Law Business Guide,reports that in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the U.S. SupremeCourt held that statistical or representative evidence could beused by a class of employees to prove liability for an employer'sfailure to pay them for donning and doffing protective gear inviolation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In this classaction lawsuit, workers at a meat-processing plant alleged thatTyson failed to give them credit for time spent donning anddoffing protective gear and walking to and from their productionline. The workers were claiming overtime pay as a result of allhours worked over 40 hours a week when adding this additionaltime.

A jury found for the workers and awarded the class about $2.9million in unpaid wages. At trial, the court allowed theemployees to use representative or an average sample of time ittook workers in donning and doffing their gear rather thanrequiring each class member to present individualized proof oftime spent. Plaintiffs' expert testified at trial that hedetermined the average time it took 53 of the 3,344 workers in theclass to do these tasks and concluded that an average of 18minutes a day needed to be added to weekly hours worked for onedepartment and 21.25 minutes a day for another department.Plaintiffs claimed it could be presumed that all class memberswere identical to the statistical average and that the workerswere owed overtime for all time over 40 hours when adding therepresentative time to the weekly time worked.

Tyson argued that the trial court erred because the time peremployee to perform those tasks was so different that they cannotrely on averages and the class should not have been certifiedunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The U.S. SupremeCourt disagreed and found that a categorical exclusion of the useof samples made little sense. It held that it would allowstatistical samples to establish liability on a case by case basis-- depending on the purpose for which the evidence was beingintroduced and on the elements of the underlying action. Inreaching this decision, the Supreme Court highlighted theemployer's violation of its duty to maintain records of this time.Because there was a gap in employer required records of work-time,each employee could have relied on the average sample of time toprove liability and therefore the representative evidence could beused on a class-wide basis.

The Supreme Court explained that its holding was consistent withits 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes as that caseinvolved 1.5 million employees who were not similarly situatedbecause they were at different stores and under differentpolicies. The class in Dukes failed to meet even Rule 23(a)'sbasic requirement that class members share a common question offact or law. On the contrary, in Tyson, the employees worked outof the same facility, did similar work, and were under the samepolicies for pay.

While refusing to establish a general rule governing the use ofsuch evidence, the Supreme Court widened the potential liabilityfor employers in defending class action suits by allowingrepresentative samples. This is particularly the case where thereare record keeping violations by the employer in the wage and hourarea. Employers should make sure that they review their practicesand procedures and confirm that they are maintaining appropriaterecords of time for all employees.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Criticizes Class Action Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------Heather Somerville and Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reportthat Uber's proposed settlement of a high-profile class-actionlawsuit has drawn opposition from some drivers and other concernedparties as the ride-hailing service seeks to avoid reclassifyingdrivers as employees.

The settlement, which still must be approved by a San Franciscofederal judge, provides for a $100 million payout to drivers, whocould get as little $12 apiece or as much as a few thousanddollars, depending on how many miles they drove.

The deal contains a number of caveats and contingencies, however,such as making $16 million of the payout to drivers dependent onUber Technologies Inc's [UBER.UL] future valuation increasing by150 percent.

Moreover, the settlement's non-monetary provisions are set toexpire in two years, although Uber may choose to keep them inplace after that.

"If there were going to be any teeth to this settlement, (theexpiration) wouldn't be there," said Christian Perea, an Uberdriver and writer for The Rideshare Guy, a popular blog andpodcast for drivers.

The sunset clause is a way for Uber to protect itself from long-term costs and annoyances, said Jack Schaedel --jschaedel@dykema.com -- a labor and employment attorney at theDykema law firm, who is not involved in the case. If any of theconcessions ends up "being totally unwieldy and Uber totally hatesit, Uber can get rid of it," he said.

Uber declined to comment.

A Rideshare Guy post explaining the terms of the settlement drewmore than 100 comments, many of them blasting the proposed deal.Uber drivers expressed dissatisfaction for a range of reasons,including that the settlement leaves unresolved the central issueof whether the law requires that drivers be qualified asemployees.

Among the non-monetary provisions of the settlement are a newpolicy governing driver termination, including an appeals processfor drivers terminated by Uber, and an agreement that theprivately-held company will clarify that drivers do notautomatically receive gratuities from their fares and allow themto solicit tips.

The company also agreed to assist with the creation of a drivers'association.

OUTSIDE OBJECTIONS

Lawyers representing Uber drivers in another class-action casehave said in court filings they may object to the settlementbecause drivers covered by it would no longer be able toparticipate in their case, which challenges Uber's alleged use ofcredit reports during driver background checks.

The lawyers also object to Uber's request to omit details from thesettlement that would allow drivers to better evaluate the deal.

The company has asked U.S. District Judge Edward Chen to redactkey figures in court filings, including an estimate of the totalpotential value of drivers' legal claims had they won in a jurytrial.

The redacted information "is critically important to any analysisof whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair,adequate, and reasonable," the lawyers wrote in a court filing.

Uber has said the figures are trade secrets and would damage thecompany if made public. In an order on April 27, Judge Chen toldboth sides to further explain their positions, given theimportance of the information.

In a similar lawsuit against Lyft, Uber's chief competitor, U.S.District Judge Vince Chhabria denied that company's request tokeep secret similar information. Judge Chhabria ultimatelyrejected the proposed $12.25 million settlement offer because itrepresented only about 9 percent of the potential value ofdrivers' claims, a deal that he said "short-changed" drivers.

While he will gladly cash a settlement check if one comes his way,driver Perea said the deal with Uber provides little solace."We were hoping for a more definitive answer on what the on-demandeconomy would look like in the future, and a sense that this wholenew economy that was taking off would work," he said.

A hearing on the deal is scheduled for June.

UNITED KINGDOM: Hillsborough Disaster Victims File Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Lizzie Dearden, writing for Independent, reports that relatives ofthe victims of the Hillsborough disaster are launching a classaction lawsuit against police that could result in millions ofpounds in compensation.

Lawyers said "several hundred" family members are represented inthe claims, which were lodged at the High Court last year butcould not be reported until the inquest verdicts on April 26.

They are seeking damages from South Yorkshire and West MidlandsPolice for "misfeasance in public office" over conduct on the dayof the disaster and an alleged conspiracy attempting to blameLiverpool fans for the deaths.

A spokesperson for Saunders Law, which is representing thefamilies, said the claims concern "the cover-up and actionsintended to wrongly blame the deceased and Liverpool Football Clubsupporters for the tragedy".

"Despite a half-hearted admission after publication of theHillsborough Independent Report, we have learnt South YorkshirePolice spent an estimated GBP19 million of tax payers' money ondefending the indefensible at the inquest," a statement said.

"After issuing the claims last year we secured a Contempt of CourtAct order from a High Court Judge preventing publication of anyinformation about the claims until the inquest ended, to avoid anyrisk of prejudice to the inquest.

"We now propose to move the claims forward to secureaccountability."

UNITED STATES: Groups Against PACER Fees Seek Class Certification-----------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled NATIONAL VETERANS LEGALSERVICES PROGRAM, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER, and ALLIANCE FORJUSTICE, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:16-cv-00745-ESH (D.D.C.)moves for class certification.

This case challenges the legality of fees charged to accessrecords through the Public Access to Court Electronic Recordssystem, commonly known as PACER. PACER is a system that providesonline access to federal judicial records and is managed by theAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The theory of liability is that these fees -- set at the same rateacross the judiciary -- far exceed the cost of providing therecords, and thus, violate the E-Government Act, which authorizesfees "as a charge for services rendered," but "only to the extentnecessary" to "reimburse expenses in providing these services."

Because this theory of liability applies equally to everyone whohas paid a PACER fee within the six-year limitations period, thePlaintiffs move to certify the case as a class action under Rule23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselvesand the following class:

"All individuals and entities who have paid fees for the use of PACER within the past six years, excluding class counsel and agencies of the federal government."

The Plaintiffs assert that as the Act's sponsor put it: PACER feesare now "well higher than the cost of dissemination" and, hence,"against the requirement of the E-Government Act," which allowsfees "only to recover the direct cost of distributing documentsvia PACER" -- not unrelated projects that "should be fundedthrough direct appropriations."

A full-text copy of Judge Montgomery's May 2, 2016 memorandumopinion and order is available at http://is.gd/HoHVt3from Leagle.com.

In the putative class action case, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valleyalleged that Varitronics sent eight unauthorized faxadvertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct and New York General Business Law.

On August 28, 2015, this action was stayed pending resolution ofthe United States Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co.v. Gomez. Campbell-Ewald, decided on January 20, 2016, addressedthe broad question of whether an unaccepted offer of judgment madepursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 to the namedplaintiff rendered a putative class action moot when the complaintwas seeking relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and a class ofpersons similarly situated. 136 S.Ct. 663, 665 (2016). Thatquestion was answered in the negative.

After Campbell-Ewald's resolution, Varitronics moved under FederalRule of Civil Procedure 67 and Local Rule 67.1 to deposit $13,000-- the amount Varitronics claims provides Bais Yaakov completerelief for its claims -- into the Court Registry in an accountpayable to Bais Yaakov.

In its Motion, Varitronics cited this language in Campbell-Ewald:"We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would bedifferent if a defendant deposits the full amount of theplaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to theplaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff inthat amount. That question is appropriately reserved for a case inwhich it is not hypothetical."

Varitronics argued that this language signals the case would havebeen decided differently if the defendant had deposited the fullamount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payableto the plaintiff.

On February 29, 2016, Judge Noel denied Varitronics' motion. Inreaching this decision, Judge Noel recognized that courts weresplit on this issue, but reasoned the fact pattern in theVaritronics' case was more akin to Brady v. Basic Research, adecision from the Eastern District of New York that denied asimilar request. The Defendant objected.

In disagreeing with Varitronics, Judge Montgomery held that,"Judge Noel concluded that Varitronics' Rule 67 motion wasmotivated solely to later attempt to moot Bais Yaakov's case and,because a class certification motion had not been decided, BaisYaakov must be afforded a fair opportunity to show that classcertification is warranted. Rather than decide the jurisdictionalquestion, Judge Noel reasoned that Varitronics' effort totransition the jurisdictional question from the periphery ontocenter stage now was premature. Such reasoning is not clearlyerroneous or contrary to law."

VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Maranda Woodward Seeks Class Certification-------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARANDA WOODWARD, Individuallyand on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VENGROFFWILLIAMS, INC., Case No. 16-cv-533 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Courtto certify the proposed class in this case, and appoint thePlaintiff as its representative, and Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as itsCounsel; and further requests that the Court both stay the motionfor class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and theDefendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefingschedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filedwith the motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative classrepresentative's individual stake in the litigation, the SeventhCircuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certificationmotion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing onthe certification motion until discovery could commence. Damascov. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion asdescribed in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not beburdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense whena one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay shouldsuffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Settlement Class consists of: "all persons to whom, on orafter October 16, 2009 through the date of Preliminary Approval,Verengo or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries, or any entityacting on its behalf, or any entity contracted to provide leads toVerengo, placed a non-emergency telephone call to a cellulartelephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing systemand/or an artificial or prerecorded voice, to a residential lineusing an artificial or prerecorded voice, or to a telephone numberregistered on the National Do-Not-Call registry, without theconsent of such person. Excluded from the Settlement Class are theJudge to whom the Action is assigned and any member of the Judge'sstaff and immediate family, as well as all persons who validlyrequest exclusion from the Settlement Class."

The final approval hearing was held on May 2, 2016.

The action is dismissed with prejudice, without costs to anyparty, except as expressly provided for in the settlementagreement.

Judge Birotte also approved the class counsel's application for$591,250 in attorney's fees and $31,443.44 in costs, and for aservice award to the settlement class representatives, ShaharLushe and William Youngblood, in the amount of $2,500 each.

A full-text copy of Judge Birotte's May 2, 2016 final judgment andorder is available at http://is.gd/xu17jEfrom Leagle.com.

VITALICIOUS ACQUISITION: Recalls Apple Crumb VitaTops Due to Milk-----------------------------------------------------------------Vitalicious Acquisition LLC, of Jamaica, NY, is voluntarilyrecalling select lots of VITALICIOUS Apple Crumb VitaTops becausethey may contain undeclared milk. Individuals who have an allergyto milk run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergicreaction if they consume this product.

The VITALICIOUS Apple Crumb VitaTops were sold nationwide directlyto consumers via online ordering only, not sold in stores andbegan shipping on March 21, 2016.

The affected VITALICIOUS Apple Crumb VitaTops are packed in aclear plastic film, NET WT. 2 oz. (55g) with the following LOTCODES and sold frozen in cases of 12 units, 24 units, or varietypacks:

No other VITALICIOUS brand products are included in this recallaction.

There has been one reported illness to date.

The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered thatthe incorrect ingredient statement which failed to declare thepresence of milk was included with the Apple Crumb VitaTops onlineorders. The company has revised the ingredient statement todeclare the presence of milk.

Consumers who have an allergy to milk and are in possession of theaffected Apple Crumb lot codes are encouraged to dispose of it,and contact the company for a refund. Consumers with questions maycall Vitalicious at 718-439-0200 ext. 627, Monday through Fridayfrom 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT or by email to:julie@vitalicious.com.

WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Rival Brand Electric Water Kettles-----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withWal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, Ark., announced a voluntaryrecall of about 1.2 million Rival brand electric water kettles.Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwiseinstructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell arecalled consumer product.

The heating element can fail and rupture, posing burn and shockhazards to the user.

This recall involves Rival brand electric water kettles with modelnumbers WK8283CU and WK8283CUY. The model numbers are printed ona product label on the underside of the water kettle. The whiteplastic water kettles were sold with a warming base and a pitcher.A window on the side pitcher has markings that measure the waterlevels. "Rival" is printed beneath the window.

Walmart has received 80 reports of incidents, including sevenreports of burns.

The Property was purchased by the Plaintiff through a loan, whichis serviced by Wells Fargo. The Plaintiff alleges that theDefendant has made material misrepresentations and materialerrors, which do not support the foreclosure of the Property. ThePlaintiff adds that the Defendant's actions caused the Plaintiff'sdamages.

The Plaintiff believes there are additional similarly situatedpersons and moves the Court to certify said class of plaintiffsbecause joinder of all members is impracticable, there arequestions of law or fact common to the class, the claims of therepresentative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the classand the representative party will fairly and adequately protectthe interests of the class.

YEXT INC: Courts Grants In Part Motion to Seal Exhibits-------------------------------------------------------District Judge John F. Keenan of the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of New York granted in part DefendantYext, Inc.'s (Yext) motion to seal certain documents submitted inconnection with both its motion for summary judgment and PlaintiffTropical Sails Corp.'s (Tropical Sails) motion for classcertification in the case captioned, TROPICAL SAILS CORP.,Plaintiff, v. YEXT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14 Civ. 7582(S.D.N.Y.).

Tropical Sails is a small business involved in the travel cruiseship industry that purchased a subscription to Yext'sPowerListings service. Tropical Sails brings suit against Yext foritself and others similarly situated alleging that Yextfraudulently induced it and others to purchase Yext'sPowerListings service and that Yext has been unjustly enriched byTropical Sails's and others' purchase of Yext's PowerListingsservice. In addition to its causes of action for fraudulentinducement and unjust enrichment, Tropical Sails alleged claimsfor violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and350, which this Court dismissed on May 18, 2015, for failure tostate a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b) (6).

Tropical Sails moved for class certification pursuant to FederalRule of Civil Procedure 23 (a) and (b) (3) on December 15, 2015.On January 22, 2016, Yext moved for summary judgment pursuant toFederal Rule of Procedure 56. Both motions were fully briefed onMarch 11, 2016.

In his Opinion and Order dated April 12, 2016 available athttp://is.gd/NieWVCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Keenan concluded that Yext has met its burden for continued sealing of the documentsrelating to marketing and business development activities. It isdirected to file those 19 documents under seal. The remainingthree documents -- (1) Exhibit 4 to Tropical Sails's motion forclass certification; (2) Exhibit B to the Declaration of Max Shawin support of Yext's Opposition to Tropical Sails's motion forclass certification; and (3) Exhibit 5 to Tropical Sail'sopposition to Yext's motion for summary judgment -- shall be filedon ECF in the same manner as all other public documents.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling on Improper Venue Exceptions Affirmed-------------------------------------------------------------In the case captioned RUFUS BLOW, JR., v. ONEBEACON AMERICAINSURANCE COMPANY, No. 2016-C-0301 (La. App.), the Court ofAppeals of Louisiana for the Fourth Circuit, in an April 20, 2016,opinion available at http://is.gd/Mht3Gsfrom Leagle.com, amended the judgment of the district court sustaining the exceptions ofimproper venue brought by OneBeacon America Insurance Company, inits capacities as insurer of John Chantry, John Cole, JamesO'Donnell, Ollie Gatlin, George Kelmell, and Peter Territo todelete the decretal language "dismissed without prejudice."

As amended, the Court of Appeals otherwise affirm the judgment andremanded the matter to the district court to transfer theplaintiffs' survival actions against OneBeacon in its capacitiesas insurer of the just named executive officers to a proper venueor venues, and, at the same time, set a deadline for thetransfer(s) and tax the cost of the transfer(s) to the appropriateparty or parties.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Had 79 Asbestos Cases at Jan. 31------------------------------------------------------As of January 31, 2016, there were 79 asbestos-related casespending against GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries, accordingto the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states, "Several of our subsidiaries have also beennamed as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injurycaused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecifiedamount of damages based on common law, statutory, or premisesliability or, in the case of ASC, the Jones Act, which provideslimited remedies to certain maritime employees. As of January 31,2016, there were 79 asbestos-related cases pending against GATXand its subsidiaries. Of the total number of pending cases, 63 areJones Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC before theyear 2000. During 2015, 5 new cases were filed, and 26 cases weredismissed without payment or otherwise settled for an immaterialamount. In addition, demand has been made against GATX forasbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given inconnection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries. Itis possible that the number of these cases or claims for indemnitycould begin to grow and that the cost of these cases, includingcosts to defend, could correspondingly increase in the future."

GATX Corporation (GATX) leases, operates, manages and remarketsassets, primarily in the rail and marine markets. The Companyoperates through four primary business segments: Rail NorthAmerica, Rail International, American Steamship Company (ASC) andPortfolio Management. Rail North America segment consists of itswholly owned operations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico,as well as two affiliate investments. Rail International segmentconsists of its wholly owned European operations (Rail Europe) andan established railcar leasing business in India (Rail India), aswell as one development stage affiliate in China. ASC segmentoperates a fleet of Unied States flagged vessels on the GreatLakes, providing waterborne transportation of dry bulk commoditiessuch as iron ore, coal, limestone aggregates, and metallurgicallimestone. Portfolio Management segment provides leasing,shipping, asset remarketing and asset management services.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Still Faces Asbestos Lawsuits-----------------------------------------------------IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., continues to face asbestos litigation,according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,2015.

The Company states, "We may be subject to material litigation,regulatory proceedings, administrative proceedings, audits,settlements, investigations and claims from time to time which mayrequire us to expend significant funds to address. There can be noassurance that the outcome of these matters will not have amaterial adverse effect on our business, results of operations,financial condition and cash flows. Asbestos and other regulatedsubstances are, and may continue to be, present at our facilities.We have been named as a defendant in asbestos litigation, which atthis time is not expected to be material to us. The presence ofasbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities couldresult in additional litigation being brought against us, whichcould have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,financial condition and cash flows."

IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. is a transmission system owner member ofMISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.), a regionaltransmission organization that maintains functional control overthe combined transmission systems of its members and manages oneof the largest energy and ancillary services markets in the U.S.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $23.2MM A&E Reserves-------------------------------------------------------------Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos claims constituted 29%of its $23.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves,according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,2015.

The Company states, "Our general liability, excess liability, andhomeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmentalclaims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily dueto: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to theabsolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and (ii)underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeownerspolicies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insuredexposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturingcommercial risks, and homeowners policies.

"The total carried net losses and loss expense reserves for theseclaims were $23.2 million as of December 31, 2015 and $23.0million at December 31, 2014. The emergence of these claims occursover an extended period and is highly unpredictable. For example,within our Standard Commercial Lines book, certain landfill sitesare included on the National Priorities List ("NPL") by the UnitedStates Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"). Once on the NPL,the USEPA determines an appropriate remediation plan for thesesites. A landfill can remain on the NPL for many years until finalapproval for the removal of the site is granted from the USEPA.The USEPA has the authority to re-open previously closed sites andreturn them to the NPL. We currently have reserves for ninecustomers related to six sites on the NPL.

"Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to haveoccurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Ourprimary exposure arises from insuring various distributors ofasbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbingmaterials. At December 31, 2015, asbestos claims constituted 29%of our $23.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves,compared to 32% of our $23.0 million net asbestos andenvironmental reserves at December 31, 2014.

"Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury orproperty damage from pollution or other environmental contaminantsother than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leakingunderground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely inpolicies written for municipal governments, in their operation ormaintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfillexposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relativelyconsistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line ofbusiness related to claims for groundwater contamination fromleaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jerseyhomeowners policies that limits our exposure to leakingunderground storage tanks for certain customers. At that time,existing customers were offered a one-time opportunity to buy backoil tank liability coverage. The exclusion applies to all newhomeowners policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligiblefor the buy-back option only if the tank meets specificeligibility criteria.

"Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in ourcentralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit.Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by-claim basis. The ability to assess potential exposure oftenimproves as a claim develops, including judicial determinations ofcoverage issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly.

"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims isdifficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reportingpatterns associated with these claims. In addition, there aresignificant uncertainties associated with estimating criticalassumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federallegislative changes. Normal historically-based actuarialapproaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claimsbecause past loss history is not indicative of future potentialloss emergence. In addition, while certain alternative models canbe applied, such models can produce significantly differentresults with small changes in assumptions. As a result, we do notcalculate an asbestos and environmental loss range. Historically,our asbestos and environmental claims have been significantlylower in volume, with less volatility and uncertainty than many ofour competitors in the commercial lines industry. Prior to theintroduction of the absolute pollution exclusion endorsement inthe mid-1980's, we were primarily a personal lines carrier andtherefore do not have broad exposure to asbestos and environmentalclaims. Additionally, we are the primary insurance carrier on themajority of these exposures, which provides more certainty in ourreserve position compared to others in the insurance marketplace."

Selective Insurance Group, Inc., is a holding company forinsurance subsidiaries, which offers property and casualtyinsurance products and services. It operates in two segments:Insurance Operations, which sells property and casualty insuranceproducts and services, and Investments, which invests the premiumscollected by the Insurance Operations. It derives its income inthree ways: underwriting income from Insurance Operations, netinvestment income from Investments, and net realized gains andlosses on investment securities from the Investments segment.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dayton Power Continues to Defend Asbestos Suits----------------------------------------------------------------DPL Inc. and The Dayton Power and Light Company continue to defendasbestos lawsuits, according to the Companies' Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the yearended December 31, 2015.

The Companies state, "We may be subject to material litigation,regulatory proceedings, administrative proceedings, audits,settlements, investigations and claims from time to time which mayrequire us to expend significant funds to address. There can be noassurance that the outcome of these matters will not have amaterial adverse effect on our business, results of operations,financial condition and cash flows. Asbestos and other regulatedsubstances are, and may continue to be, present at our facilities.We have been named as a defendant in asbestos litigation, which atthis time is not expected to be material to us. The continuedpresence of asbestos and other regulated substances at thesefacilities could result in additional litigation being broughtagainst us, which could have a material adverse effect on ourresults of operations, financial condition and cash flows."

The Dayton Power and Light Company is a public utilityincorporated in 1911 under the laws of Ohio. The Dayton, Ohio-based Company sells electricity to residential, commercial,industrial and governmental customers in a 6,000-square-milearea of West Central Ohio. DP&L is the principal subsidiary ofDPL Inc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Retains Asbestos Proceedings-------------------------------------------------------OfficeMax retained asbestos-related proceedings, according toOffice Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended December 26, 2015.

On November 5, 2013, the Company completed its merger withOfficeMax Incorporated in an all-stock transaction.

OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims,and proceedings arising out of the operation of certain paper andforest products assets prior to those assets being sold in 2004,for which OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility. Also, as partof that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain responsibility for allpending or threatened proceedings and future proceedings allegingasbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of thepaper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the sale.The Company has made provision for losses with respect to thepending proceedings. Additionally, as of December 26, 2015, theCompany has made provision for environmental liabilities withrespect to certain sites where hazardous substances or othercontaminants are or may be located. For these environmentalliabilities, the Company's estimated range of reasonably possiblelosses was approximately $10 million to $25 million. The Companyregularly monitors its estimated exposure to these liabilities. Asadditional information becomes known, these estimates may change,however, the Company does not believe any of these OfficeMaxretained proceedings are material to the Company's business.

Office Depot, Inc., including consolidated subsidiaries, is aglobal supplier of office products and services. The Companycurrently operates under the Office Depot(R) and OfficeMax(R)banners and utilizes proprietary Company and product brandnames. In August 2014, the Company completed the sale of its 51%capital stock interest in Grupo OfficeMax S. de R.L. de C.V.,the former OfficeMax, Incorporated business in Mexico, to itsjoint venture partner.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Berkley Has $33MM A&E Reserves at Dec. 31-------------------------------------------------------------W.R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves for losses and lossexpenses relating to asbestos and environmental claims was $33million at December 31, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended December 31, 2015.

The Company's net reserves for losses and loss expenses relatingto asbestos and environmental claims was $33 million at December31, 2015 and $36 million at December 31, 2014. The Company's grossreserves for losses and loss expenses relating to asbestos andenvironmental claims were $51 million and $56 million at December31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Net incurred losses and lossexpenses for reported asbestos and environmental claims decreasedapproximately $2 million in 2015 and increased by approximately $4million and $5 million in 2014 and 2013, respectively. Net paidlosses and loss expenses for asbestos and environmental claimswere approximately $2 million in 2015, $3 million in 2014 and $3million in 2013. The estimation of these liabilities is subject tosignificantly greater than normal variation and uncertaintybecause it is difficult to make an actuarial estimate of theseliabilities due to the absence of a generally accepted actuarialmethodology for these exposures and the potential effect ofsignificant unresolved legal matters, including coverage issues,as well as the cost of litigating the legal issues. Additionally,the determination of ultimate damages and the final allocation ofsuch damages to financially responsible parties are highlyuncertain.

W. R. Berkley Corporation (W. R. Berkley) is an insurance holdingcompany. The Company operates in the three segments of theproperty casualty insurance business: Insurance-Domestic,Insurance-International and Reinsurance-Global. The Company'sInsurance -Domestic operating units underwrite specialty riskswithin the excess and surplus lines market and on an admittedbasis. The Company through its Insurance-International operatingunits writes business in almost 40 countries across the world,with branches or offices in 15 locations outside the UnitedStates, including the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, SouthAmerica, Canada, Scandinavia, and Australia. The Company providesother insurance companies and self-insureds with assistance inmanaging their net risk through reinsurance on either a portfoliobasis, through treaty reinsurance, or on an individual basis,through facultative reinsurance.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Court Remands Asbestos Action-----------------------------------------------------HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a West Virginia federalcourt has remanded an asbestos case, concluding that the removingdefendant had asserted a federal defense to claims that "simply donot exist."

In the April 29 order, the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of West Virginia wrote that since the plaintiffs haddisclaimed any claims relating to the plaintiff's militaryservice, General Electric had no grounds for removal.

The plaintiffs brought the claims on behalf of Roy A. Siders,contending that he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposureto asbestos-containing products.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Confirms Asbestos at Glory Days Site---------------------------------------------------------Philip A. Vanno, writing for Utica Observer-Dispatch, reportedthat the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed thatthe debris from the razed Glory Days building contains asbestosthat the agency will assist in cleaning up.

In an email sent to village Mayor Anthony Brindisi Tuesday, EPARegional Administrator Judith Enck said that samples of thebuilding materials that were collected by a third party prior tothe demolition of the former hotel "were analyzed by (the) EPA andfound to contain asbestos."

Enck said in the email that finding makes the 248 N. Main St. siteeligible for cleanup under its Superfund program.

"EPA seeks to have polluters pay for cleanups and will contact theowner of the hotel property to determine if she can pay for orconduct the cleanup," Enck said in the email. "If the propertyowner is unable or unwilling to do so, EPA will conduct thecleanup."

Part of the roof and third floor of the building collapsed in July2014 and it was torn down in June 2015 to the tune of $50,000,which was billed to the property's owner -- Glory Ventures LLC ofNew Jersey.

Brindisi said the estimated cost to haul the debris from the site-- which has been covered in tarps in order to contain anypossible contamination -- is about $500,000.

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer D-N.Y. visited the site in Decemberand assisted in the matter by writing to the EPA on behalf of thevillage.

"This means that the cleanup will be taken care of at no cost tous or the taxpayers," said Brindisi, who hopes the process will[start] in the coming months. "We couldn't be happier to hearthis."

The Glory Days building, formerly the General Herkimer Hotel, iswhere 64-year-old Kurt Myers holed up in March 2013 after killingfour people and wounding two others in a shooting spree in Mohawkand Herkimer.

Myers was killed March 14, 2013, during a shootout with policeinside the vacant building, after a tactical unit raided thebuilding.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Naval Ship Asbestos Removal to Cost EUR500K------------------------------------------------------------Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Examiner, reported that thetaxpayer will have to foot the near EUR0.5m bill for removingpotentially-lethal asbestos from Naval Service ships, but thefinal cost could be far higher.

Civilian and naval personnel who worked on the asbestos-contaminated ships will have to be medically screened for the restof their lives as asbestosis symptoms can take up to 40 years tomanifest.

The Department of Defence has confirmed that the total cost ofcleaning up and disposing of asbestos on ships and workshops atthe navy's headquarters at Haulbowline Island was EUR447,000.

In 2000, navy chiefs ordered a full survey to be carried out onthe fleet amid concerns asbestos could be onboard some of theships which were built in the 1980s.advertisement

At the time of construction the substance was considered the bestand most cost-effective insulating material and was also fire-resistant. It was especially used to contain fires in enginerooms.

A private company was hired to carry out the survey on the eight-strong fleet and gave it a clean bill of health.

It therefore came as a major shock to the navy's top brass whenasbestos starting turning up on some of the ships during routinemaintenance.

The taxpayer will have to foot this bill because theCarrigtwohill-based company which carried out the survey has sincegone out of business.

First LE Aoife was found to have asbestos in a gasket in itsengine room and the substance was also detected in LE Eithne'sforward pump room.

However, far larger quantities of the asbestos were then found inthe LE Ciara and LE Orla during routine maintenance.

It took several months to remove the asbestos on both of thosevessels and it had to be transported to Germany for safe disposal.

In one case, a number of servicemen and civilian employees of theDepartment of Defence were unknowingly exposed to asbestos fibresfor up to three weeks as the worked onboard without sufficientpersonal protection clothing.

The Health & Safety Authority (HSA) decided late last year that itwouldn't prosecute the Naval Service for the asbestos incidents,primarily because it had been told by the private company that noasbestos was onboard the ships.

The Naval Service had, in the meantime, introduced new protocolsto mitigate against exposure to asbestos.

It's unlikely that any of the material is present on the newerships.

PDforra, the organisation which represents enlisted men in thenavy, said it wasn't happy with the HSA investigation.

A spokesman for PDforra said up to 100 of its members could havebeen exposed to asbestos both onboard the ships and in workshipswhere the asbestos present in some exhausts was being ground down.

It's expected PDforra will shortly write to the HSA asking howmany of its members were interviewed by the HSA investigatingteam, because the representative association believes it didn'tspeak to enough of them compared to the civilian workers who werealso put at risk of exposure.

It's believed that more than 50 civilian employees based inHaulbowline at the time could have been at risk.

The PDforra spokesman added that his organisation will insist thatall personnel get regular screening for asbestos symptoms, notjust while they are employed by the Naval Service, but whenthey're retired.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher's Death Linked to Asbestos----------------------------------------------------------Wakefield Express reported that former colleagues of a man whodied from asbestos-related cancer are being urged to help with aninvestigation into how he came into contact with the harmfulsubstance.

David Clegg, a former teacher and factory worker from Knottingley,was diagnosed with mesothelioma just a week before he died inFebruary, aged 58.

His wife Susan, 59, has instructed industrial disease experts atlaw firm Irwin Mitchell to investigate how he may have come intocontact with deadly asbestos dust which causes the illness.

Irwin Mitchell said Mr Clegg worked at Pollards Bearings inFerrybridge for eight weeks over the summer while he was atUniversity in the 1970s.

He also worked at Goole Grammar School between 1979 and 1980 andFeatherstone High School from 1980 to 2000.

Mum-of-two Mrs Clegg appealed for former colleagues to comeforward.

She said: "David and I were shocked and devastated by thediagnosis. We had no time to come to terms with it. We had madeplans for our retirement together and now I am facing that futurealone."

Mr Clegg had described scraping out a fibrous material he believedwas asbestos from the inside of furnaces at Pollards Bearings.

His family also have concerns that exposure could have happened inclassrooms at the two schools.

Mr Clegg was also a keen writer who had work published byStairwells in York before his death.

Ian Toft, head of the industrial disease team at Irwin Mitchell'sLeeds office, representing Mrs Clegg, said: "It's important thatwe now help Susan and her family get answers about his exposure tothe deadly dust.

"Mesothelioma is an aggressive and incurable cancer which causesso much distress for people like Susan and her family.

"On this occasion, the disease took David's life within only oneweek of his diagnosis.

"Sadly, many employers did not do enough to manage the risks ofasbestos exposure, despite knowing how dangerous it is."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Husband's Clothes Exposed Woman to Asbestos------------------------------------------------------------North Devon Journal reported that a woman has died after she wasexposed to asbestos while washing her former husband's clothes ather North Devon home.

Yvonne Smalldon, 75, of Buckland Brewer, was diagnosed withmesothelioma after being exposed to the deadly dust.

During an inquest hearing, a statement was read out from MrsSmalldon's GP Dr Andrew Clarke, who said she had not been directlyexposed to asbestos while working as an auxillery nurse.

MORE: Drug death leads to investigation at North Devon GP surgery

However, he said he believed she contracted the disease as aresult of cleaning her former husband's clothes between 1960 and1975, due to his involvement in the building trade.

The workers had no training, no protective gear, no water to wetthe crumbly asbestos and no leak-proof bags in which to dispose ofit. Some did the work dressed in flip-flops, T-shirts and shorts.

Bradley's crew included an ex-con, a drug addict, and at least sixresidents of the Good Samaritan Rescue Mission, located across aparking lot from the job site. At one point during the project --the renovation of a church for a charter school -- a ceiling withasbestos rained down dust, thick as snow.

At Bradley's federal trial on charges of improper asbestosabatement, assistant U.S. attorney Janet Parker told jurors thatpromising the men cash "was a convenient way of getting workers todo work that was very unpleasant, very difficult, very hazardousat times."

"The workers were people who were very desperate for a job," shesaid. "They were desperate for any kind of money."

Across the country, the Free Press found other examples ofcontractors like Bradley, who prey on vulnerable people to takematerial containing asbestos out of aging buildings: immigrants,ex-cons, day laborers, homeless people and teenagers.

Experts say documenting the extent of the problem is difficultbecause workers may be afraid to complain or may not know who tocall. In many cases, they don't speak English.

Craig Gestring, an assistant U.S. attorney in Rochester, N.Y.,said he has prosecuted several cases that involved workers whowere "unskilled, unknowledgeable and are basically patsies andit's always done to save a buck."

He said he believes it is a growing problem as more and more olderbuildings are demolished or renovated and contractors cut corners.

The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration and theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency both investigated Bradley.MIOSHA cited his company, Thunder Builders, for several violations-- none involving asbestos -- and levied $300 in penalties. TheEPA got a four-count indictment against Bradley and a convictionon all charges after an eight-day jury trial. His sentence: fiveyears.

Bradley's estranged brother-in-law, Roy Richard Jr., said in aninterview at his Bay City home that he was facing prison time forhome invasion when he worked on Bradley's crew at the church and"just about everybody had some form of charge" against them, suchas domestic violence or drunk driving, or had a drug or alcoholproblem.

Bradley "capitalized on everybody's misfortune," he said.

Matthew Scherret also worked on the crew. Scherret, who didn'thave a job or a home when he first arrived in Bay City in 2010from Huron County, told a grand jury he was "living at thehomeless shelter because I moved down here because my girlfriendwas pregnant and he (Bradley) had an opening for a constructionjob. I went and got it."

How did he learn about the job?

"I got told from some people that was living there with me at thehomeless shelter," Scherret said.

He said workers typically started the day at a motorcycle shopthat Bradley owned before they were dispatched to various worksites, including the church that became a building for Bay CityAcademy.

In an interview at his home in Bad Axe in Michigan's Thumb,Scherret said Bradley paid him cash, $50 a day, and he usuallyworked seven days a week. He said he wore no protective gear whencutting pipes and the surrounding insulation went into regulargarbage bags.

Scherett said he returned to his childhood home after getting intoa fight with another Bradley crew member. He's now a farmworker.

Workers exposed

From court and OSHA records and a conversation with a federalprosecutor, the Free Press found other examples of contractorstargeting vulnerable workers:

An owner of a warehouse in Rochester, N.Y., used a 16-year-old,his mother and several other people who had done odd jobs for himto remove asbestos from an industrial dumpster outside hisbuilding. He paid them cash and did not provide proper masks andprotective suits. Anastasios Kolokouris of Avon, N.Y., pleadedguilty to one count of violating the federal Clean Air Act andfaces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine whensentenced in June.

A contractor exposed 50 to 60 workers to asbestos while scrappinga former hospital complex in Rochester, N.Y. "He basically hired abunch of workers who didn't speak English or were ex-convicts orhad other issues. They're not going to call the cops first off,"said Gestring, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the casein federal court. The contractor, Keith Gordon-Smith, wassentenced in 2011 to 72 months in prison and ordered to pay$302,887 in restitution. Gestring said asbestos-containinginsulation was "coming down like snow" and the work went on formonths. The workers had no protective gear.

A construction company exposed at least eight workers, many ofthem brought into the U.S. on temporary visas, to asbestos whenthey removed floor tiles and insulation at a former elementaryschool in Okawville, Ill. Federal OSHA investigated the case andsaid some of the workers spoke only Spanish, were not trained towork with asbestos and did not have basic equipment such as hardhats, eye wear and protective clothing. In 2015, OSHA proposedpenalties of $1.8 million against Joseph Kehrer and KehrerBrothers Construction. The case remains open.

Blackstone Business Enterprises, a metal fabricator, exposed fourlaborers hired through an employment agency in 2008 to removesteam pipes that contained asbestos insulation at at its plant inJamestown, N.Y. Federal OSHA investigated and got $205,000 inpenalties. Company president Daniel Black was sentenced to 12months in prison after pleading guilty to filing a false taxreturn and one asbestos charge.

Dan Somenauer, business manager of Taylor-based Abatement WorkersRegional Local 207, which represents asbestos-abatement workers in20 states east of the Mississippi, said some of his members toldhim that before joining the union they worked for companies thatpaid substandard wages and hired homeless workers, undocumentedimmigrants and college students.

Acting on a tip from union members, Somenauer said officials ofhis local visited a job site in Detroit where they suspectedundocumented immigrants were removing asbestos. They reportedlyhad been brought in by a company based in the South, were housedin a large home in Detroit, and shuttled to their work site by avan. The union tried to persuade the owner of the property to stopusing the workers, but he refused. The incident happened a littlemore than two years ago. Somenauer said he didn't contactauthorities because he wasn't 100% sure they were illegalimmigrants.

He said the union checks the credentials of anyone who wants tojoin and often finds workers who were "hired off the streets,"then given cursory training. His union requires its members to getproper federally approved training and certification from thestate where they work.

He estimates 40% of abatement projects are done with improperlytrained and equipped workers.

Following a tip

The EPA was tipped to the situation at the church in Bay City in2011 and launched a criminal investigation of Bradley thatculminated in his 2014 trial in U.S. District Court in Bay City.One of Bradley's employees, Jason Walbecq, told jurors he worehis "normal clothes" and a dust mask during asbestos removal. Heshould have had a respirator and worn disposable coveralls, a hoodand shoe covers.

He and another member of the crew, Peanut, removed pipes from thebuilding and sawed them into smaller pieces without wetting theinsulation. Walbecq said he was paid $350 a week in cash, andworked 10 or 11-hour days.

He said another worker, John John, ripped up floor tiles anddidn't wet them either.

Scherret said he also scraped up floor tiles, and some of themshattered. They were tossed into regular garbage bags or aDumpster.

Both the pipe insulation and some floor tiles that broke apartcontained asbestos fibers.

Richard said Bradley told him to remove a large ceiling. Using ahammer, "I started beating it. It come down like snow. It justcome down so thick. It was brutal." He said workers just swept orshoveled up the dust.

He said Bradley assured him that the ceiling had been tested andcame back negative for asbestos. But two days later, he saidBradley told him not to come to work the next day because "MIOSHAwants to know who tore that ceiling out because it was asbestos."

"I should have stood up and said, 'This is not happening,'"Richard said. But he said he needed the money.

Richard, who spent 29 months in prison, said he has had eyeproblems since his work on the school. Cancer from the asbestos,he said, "it's just a matter of time."

At Bradley's sentencing, his lawyer, Mark Satawa, asked for asentence of no more than 24 months.

In March 2015, U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington gave him 60months. He was also ordered to pay restitution of $14,600 to covermedical testing for four of his victims.

Satawa was hired as Bradley's lawyer after his conviction. Inearly April, he asked Ludington to hold a hearing on his claimsthat Bradley's trial attorney, Elias Escobedo Jr., provided anineffective defense, "without calling a single witness orintroducing a single exhibit," according to a court filing.

"I don't believe all of the important and pertinent facts came outduring my client's trial," Satawa said in an interview. "Roy'slawyer did not call certain witnesses and did not present thedefense that Roy wanted presented."

Escobedo declined comment, citing attorney-client privilege.

MIOSHA told the Free Press it got no employee complaints orreferrals from outside agencies about asbestos abatement at thetime of Bradley's project, and when its inspectors visited thesite in 2011 they did not observe asbestos abatement activity.

But, according to court testimony, MIOSHA inspector StevenFlannery collected a sample of pipe insulation during hisinspection and fellow inspector Cindy Zastrow submitted it foranalysis. MIOSHA's lab found it contained asbestos.

Zastrow testified at Bradley's trial that during her inspectionshe saw workers who did not have proper respiratory protection"performing manual demolition and renovation using hand toolswhich disturbs ... anything from lead and cadmium-containing paintto asbestos. So there was definite disturbance of differentbuilding materials that was a concern to me."

She said she asked Bradley during the inspection whether hisworkers had received asbestos-awareness training and he said theyhad not. But she acknowledged that she did not recommend thatmanagement in Lansing shut down the project. She testified thatshe was aware of just one job site that had been ordered to closein 20-30 years.

"It pretty much takes an act of God," Zastrow testified. "You haveto prove that there is immediate danger to life and health ... andthen the call has to be made to Lansing. The legal departmentwithin MIOSHA gets involved and they have to go before a judge..."

MIOSHA said it could not address specifics of the case because itno longer has the records. Zastrow and Flannery have left theagency.

MIOSHA also did not cite Bradley's company for another violation:failing to give the agency 10 days notice before starting asbestosabatement, which could have cost him up to $10,000.

Celeste Monforton, a former federal OSHA official, said MIOSHA hadred flags. It had an asbestos sample and a contractor who hadn'tnotified the agency before abatement. "That tells you that youhave a rogue operation and you should swoop in and hold thecontractor accountable and make sure the workers and the communityare protected."

Dan Streeter, executive director of Rescue Ministries of Mid-Michigan, which runs the Good Samaritan Rescue Mission, said "it'sa shame" that some of the residents "have been preyed upon. ...You're preying upon people who are in a vulnerable spot."

Streeter said he was not aware that Bradley had hired shelterresidents. He said it tries to place residents with reputablecontractors who do work properly.

But the shelter couldn't stop Bradley from offering jobs to menwho needed the cash.

David Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan whospent 17 years at the U.S. Justice Department, seven as chief ofthe environmental crimes section, said: "Preying on homelesspeople by exposing them to asbestos is unconscionable and morethan justifies a five-year prison term. A $300 fine, on the otherhand, is absurdly inadequate."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Didn't Issue Fines in Violations----------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reported that Michigan's state worker safetyagency didn't issue fines in the majority of asbestos abatementcases where it found serious violations during the past sevenyears, and not one company was fined the maximum $7,000, anewspaper reports.

Fines weren't issued in two-thirds of the more than 4,000violations that the Michigan Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration closed between February 2009 and February 2016, theDetroit Free Press reported.

The newspaper also found that 96 percent of safety violationsresulted in penalties of $1,000 or less.

MIOSHA spokeswoman Tanya Baker took issue with the report thattwo-thirds of the violations weren't fined, saying the newspaperlooked at each violation individually. She said the agency groupedrelated violations and assigned a penalty to just one of them. Shealso said the penalties are meant to correct violations and deterothers.

John Newquist, a former top official in the federal OccupationalSafety and Health Administration's regional office in Chicago,which oversees Michigan, said he "never grouped asbestosviolations." Celeste Monforton, a former OSHA policy analyst, saidif MIOSHA wants "to use penalties as a deterrent effect, youwouldn't be grouping them."

Both said each violation should be treated separately.

Monforton, who spent 12 years at OSHA and at the Mine Safety andHealth Administration, said MIOSHA's penalties overall are sominimal that they don't serve as an effective deterrent. He saidweak enforcement encourages "fly-by-night operations who riskpeople's health because they may get away with it."

Monforton, now a lecturer at the School of Public Health at GeorgeWashington University, also took issue with MIOSHA's assertionthat it uses penalty reductions to encourage employers to remedyhazards quickly, noting that with asbestos, "exposure has alreadyhappened and there's no way to abate that."

Newquist said states that choose to oversee worker safety ratherthan have the federal government do it tend to go easier onemployers.

MIOSHA Director Martha Yoder, who recently retired, told thenewspaper last year that her asbestos inspectors could not monitorall abatement projects in Michigan. The agency has four inspectorsthis year, down from five in fiscal 2015.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Starts Proceedings Over Asbestos-------------------------------------------------------David Sedgwick, writing for News Guardian, reported that a widowis looking for answers after her husband developed terminal cancermesothelioma from exposure to asbestos.

Alan Cook, a former laboratory technician from Dudley, wasdiagnosed with the disease in March 2015 but died on September 26,2015, aged 68.

Before his death he instructed lawyers at Irwin Mitchell toinvestigate how he was exposed to the deadly material.

Since his death, his widow, Jennifer, has continued to fight foranswers, issuing formal legal proceedings at the High Courtagainst Tioxide, the company where Alan believed he was exposed toasbestos dust and fibres.

He worked at the company's Billingham site between 1965 and 1970.

Before his death he said that he and his colleagues would use twotypes of asbestos rope during the experiments.

Jennifer is now appealing for Alan's former colleagues fromTioxide to come forward with crucial information on the presenceof asbestos at the company's Billingham site and the safetymeasures, if any, implemented.

Jennifer said: "Alan's diagnosis was a terrible shock to us alland it was terrible to see him in so much distress and losing somuch weight."

"We are still struggling to come to terms with his death and whilewe know nothing can ever bring him back we feel we need to getsome answers for Alan and ensure those responsible for exposinghim to this dreadful substance are held to account for failing toprotect him and those he worked alongside.

"He told me he was never warned of the dangers of asbestos whileworking for Tioxide or provided with any sort of protection fromthe asbestos he handled on a daily basis."

Alan told his legal team at Irwin Mitchell that the ropes wouldrelease dust and fibres into the atmosphere and that his workclothes were often covered in asbestos dust by the end of the day.

He also recalled the pipework at the facility being lagged withasbestos and repair work taking place while he was present, whichled to further dust and fibres being released into the workingatmosphere.

Roger Maddocks, a Partner and expert industrial disease lawyer atIrwin Mitchell, said: "Asbestos dust and fibres can be extremelydangerous when inhaled or ingested and can cause a number ofserious and sometimes fatal diseases, but all too often we seeinstances where employees were not given the correct informationor protective equipment to prevent their exposure to the deadlymaterial.

"Alan's diagnosis had a huge impact on his life and he wanted toknow why he was exposed to asbestos dust and fibres without anywarnings about the risks the material posed.

"His family are still determined to understand how he was exposedand we have now issued High Court proceedings in a bid to get themthe answers they deserve about Alan's death.

"We would like to hear from anyone who worked at Tioxide in the1960s and 70s as they may have crucial information that will helpAlan's his family understand what happened and begin to providethem with some closure concerning his death."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former William Press Worker Dies of Mesothelioma-----------------------------------------------------------------The Bucks Herald reported that a devastated family is appealing toformer workers from William Press & Sons Ltd in the Aylesbury areato help them find out where their father was exposed to deadlyasbestos.

John Nicklen died from aggressive mesothelioma in December 2013 atthe age of 73 after being exposed to asbestos dust and fibres.

Since John's death his daughter and son, Daniela Taylor andTristan Nicklen, have taken up their father's fight for justice.

His family now need the help of former William Press & Sons Ltdemployees who may have worked with John or know about the use ofasbestos products by the public works contractor. During the 1970sthe firm was involved in converting the UK's housing stock fromtown gas to natural gas.

Tristan said: "Dad was employed by William Press between 1965 and1966, and again between 1971 and 1973. He was involved in layingpipes in the countryside in and around Aylesbury. The pipes weremade with asbestos and dad had to cut them to size to be laid.There was no doubt in his mind that the dust and fibres fromcutting the asbestos pipes caused his lung cancer."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Optical Hit with $16-Mil. Verdict-----------------------------------------------------------Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reported that a Californiajury rules that American Optical Corporation must pay a formermachinist who developed mesothelioma $16 million, along withpossible punitive damages after finding the manufacturer of therespiratory equipment knew its product could not prevent dangerousexposure to asbestos and hid that fact from purchasers.

The 12-member jury reached a verdict in favor of the plaintiffafter one day of deliberating, determining that American Opticalacted with "malice, fraud or oppression" in conduct that was asubstantial factor for the 62-year-old plaintiff, Louis WilliamTyler.

The award includes past and future economic damages and medicalexpenses for Tyler and his wife Becky. It will also covercompensation for his pain, loss of enjoyment of life and mentalsuffering, and will provide her with past and future loss of love,companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, moralsupport and sexual relations.

The six men and six women of the jury are scheduled to begindeliberating of possible punitive damages.

After Tyler was diagnosed with mesolthelioma last year, he suedAmerican Optical for negligence, strict product liability,negligent failure to warn, concealment of intentionmisrepresentation, among other causes of action.

The jury found through a 32-question verdict form that theAmerican Optical Corporation respirator provided to Tyler at thefoundry where he worked did not provide the protection an ordinaryconsumer would expect and that the company concealed the defects.

During closing arguments on Thursday, Jospeh Satterly of KazanMcClain Satterly & Greenwood said his client was enduring a "slow,painful death."

The defective respirator made by American Optical Corporation thatwas used by Tyler while working with materials containing asbestosas a machinist at a foundry in Southern California is responsiblefor substantial blame for that death sentence, said Satterly.

"This is a very sad and very difficult story," said Sharla J.Frost of Tucker Ellis LLP. "This is the story of William Tyler. Asa 19-year-old, he went into this workplace, Foundry Service &Supplies, and at that point the last chapter of his life waswritten."

Pictures of the machine shop from the early 1970s were put ondisplay to the jury, which shows Tyler and other employees atwork, some with and without respirators, with no one wearingprotective clothing. A close-up photo shows an open soda can inthe work area.

Frost said the owners of the foundry did not adequately controldust in their shop and failed to measure asbestos levels. Theattorney added that much more could have been done to make theshop a safer place for workers, adding that a respirator should bethe "last level of defense."

Satterly blasted American Optical for trying to shift the blame.

"They're charging Foundry, this little 2,000-square-footoperation, as being negligent because they didn't have arespirator program and they didn't have the proper dust collectionsystems and they didn't do certain things," Satterly said."Foundry Service & Supplies wasn't doing anything worse than anyother entity in the '70s and '80s."

Satterly said there is no evidence that Tyler was not wearing hiswork-issued respirator, which was used by workers to protect themfrom asbestos. The product from American Optical showed signs of"leakage" that allowed the deadly microscopic fibers to get insidethe worker's lungs.

"What they sold for many, many years through this product was afalse sense of security," said Satterly. "They sold a product tomake people think they'd be ok."

The model of respirator was neither designed nor sold for asbestosprotection, said Frost. She reminded jurors that Foundry was notusing American Optical products for the first few years on thejob, but used a face mask manufactured by 3M Co.

Company documents showed that American Optical was aware itscustomers were using the R2090 in asbestos worksites, and nosignificant efforts were made to stop that, said Satterly.

When jurors were asked who was mostly responsible for Tylerdevloping mesothelioma, they found American Optical was 70 percentto blame, with 20 percent to Foundry Service & Supplies, and 5percent culpability to both Tyler himself and 3M.

The damages totaling $15.96 million imposed American Opticalreflects the 70 percent proportion of the overall damagescollected. The Foundry and 3M were not defendants in the trial.

The California jury slammed the American Optical Corporation withan additional $10 million in punitive damages, adding to the $22million in compensatory damages awarded to Tyler and his wife.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Woman Claims Exposure Led to Husband's Death----------------------------------------------------------------Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,reported that a man's widow who is the administrator of his estateis suing over allegations that his death was tied to asbestosexposure.

Joanne Walsh, individually and as special administrator of theestate of Charles Walsh, filed the suit April 20 in Madison CountyCircuit Court against 3M Co., alleging negligence and othercounts.

From 1964 to 1996, the deceased was allegedly exposed to asbestos-containing products while on the job. Those products allegedlyinclude pumps, valves, gaskets, HVAC equipment and pipes, amongothers.

On Dec. 26, 2012, the deceased was diagnosed with lung cancer,wrongfully caused by asbestos exposure, according to thecomplaint, and he died July 5, 2013.

The suit says his death is attributable to the alleged negligenceof the defendant in the following ways, among others: it includedasbestos in its products, it failed to provide adequate warningsto those working with the products, and it failed to test theproducts to determine any hazards from working with them.

As a result, according to the complaint, the deceased was exposedto, inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers.Before he died, he paid large sums of money for medical care,experienced great physical pain, and could not perform his normalcourse of employment so his family was deprived of his monetarysupport, the suit says. The plaintiff seeks damages for the lossof consortium of her husband.

She seeks judgment of at least $50,000 for each count plus otherrelief the court deems appropriate. She is represented by Eric D.Jackstadt and Napoli Shkolnik of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC inEdwardsville.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-546

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justices Deny Rehearing Statute of Repose Case---------------------------------------------------------------Scott Roberts, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, reported that theIndiana Supreme Court issued an order declining to rehear a casethat ended the statute of repose on prolonged asbestos cases by a3-2 vote Thursday, with the same justices who voted to end thestatute of repose voting against the rehearing.

The court combined three appeals in its original ruling, whichsaid section 2 of the Indiana Product Liability Act contained aconstitutionally impermissible distinction between asbestosplaintiffs who mined and sold raw asbestos and asbestos plaintiffswho were injured by defendants not in that category. JusticesBrent Dickson, Steven David and Robert Rucker voted against therehearing, just as they voted to amend IPLA and strike section 2.

David wrote a one-page opinion affirming the decision in whichDickson and Rucker concurred. Justice Mark Massa wrote a six-pagedecision dissenting from the denial of rehearing, in which ChiefJustice Loretta Rush concurred.

In his dissent, Massa wrote that because the Indiana attorneygeneral was not notified in the case, it should be remanded to thetrial court so he can participate. He cited Sendak v. Denbro, acase from 1976 in which the attorney general was not served in acase challenging the constitutionality of a state statute. Thecourt there remanded the case to the trial court because servingthe attorney general helps the will of the people be heard indecisions that threaten statutes, and ruled all cases thatthreaten statutes should have the attorney general notified.

Massa also wrote on the merits of the case, which hinged on staredecisis and whether the Supreme Court had covered the same groundin Allied Signal v Ott from 2003, "although the majority went tosuch great pains to say it was not ignoring precedent, in sodoing, it has given us a new framework that will prove difficultto apply."

Later he wrote, "If distinguishing between asbestos plaintiffsinjured by defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos andasbestos plaintiffs who were injured by defendants outside thatcategory is constitutionally impermissible, many otherclassifications the legislature has deemed appropriate can andwill be challenged. The costs of massaging classifications for adesired result will soon multiply."

David replied to Massa's opinion by writing the attorney generaldid participate in the decision by briefing the matter in anamicus brief and had not asked for rehearing. David cited M&MInvestment Group LLC v Ahlemeyer Farms Inc. 994N.E.2d1108, 1112(Ind. 2013) in which the Supreme Court upheld a decision that waschallenged because the attorney general was not served, but didwrite an amicus brief.

"We can address the constitutional issue as a matter of law,"David said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WVU Coliseum Closed Due to Potential Asbestos--------------------------------------------------------------Ryan Quinn, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reported that theWest Virginia University Coliseum in Morgantown was closed afterworkers renovating the structure found some material that maycontain asbestos.

In university news releases, John Principe, WVU's director ofenvironmental health and safety, said the Coliseum was closedimmediately "so that we can assess the situation properly." Hesaid contractors and athletic department staff were in thebuilding at the time.

Principe and several of his subordinates didn't return theGazette-Mail's requests for comment.

WVU spokesman John Bolt said the concourse area ringing theColiseum arena has been undergoing renovations since shortly afterthe final men's basketball home game March 2, with the hope theconcourse would be ready for the start of the next basketballseason this fall. A March WVU news release said the arena itselfwould be unaffected during this renovation phase.

Bolt said he didn't immediately know the exact kind of materialthat may contain asbestos.

"I'm still trying to get confirmation on how widespread it mightbe," he said. He said Principe called him about the issue between12:30 p.m. and 1 p.m. Friday, though he didn't know who initiallydiscovered the material.

"The suspect asbestos containing material discovered wasencapsulated in an inaccessible area above ceilings in entrancesto the restrooms ringing the concourse, and did not pose a healthhazard to any individuals within the building," Principe stated ina news release. He stated it was only exposed by the renovationwork.

Asbestos is a generic term for six naturally occurring fibrousmaterials that were commonly used in buildings because they areresistant to heat and most chemicals. Breathing asbestos can causeasbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, an incurable and fatalform of cancer that develops in the chest cavity and encases andgrows into the lungs.

Typically, asbestos in old buildings in the United States -- theColiseum is 46 years old -- is left alone unless it begins todeteriorate into fibers that can be inhaled.

Bolt said that a Pittsburgh lab is testing the material, and thatWVU hopes to have results from the test by the end of Saturday.

WVU has planned to hold multiple graduation ceremonies fordifferent constituent colleges in the Coliseum starting May 13.When asked whether any asbestos-containing material confirmationwould mean cancellation of these events, Bolt said "that'll be aquestion that will have to be addressed when we find out theanswer to whether it is or is not."

A WVU employee had complained to the EPA that the university hadignored asbestos problems in the Coliseum.

The WVU men's basketball team played its "home" games inCharleston, Wheeling and Fairmont during the 1999-2000 season.

The controversy contributed to a WVU employee class-action lawsuitagainst the university that resulted in a $3 million settlementmeant to provide university employees lung tests and other examsto detect the early signs of asbestos-related lung diseases. WVUagreed to the deal to resolve the five-year-old lawsuit byemployees who alleged the university wrongly exposed them todangerous levels of asbestos in campus buildings.

Bolt said previous asbestos abatement was to a different part ofthe Coliseum. The work currently ongoing -- estimated to cost $15million -- at the Coliseum is part of Phase I of plannedrenovations to the structure.

"Phase I will entail more than doubling of restrooms, the neardoubling of points of sale for concessions, the widening of theconcourse for ingress and egress, exterior access to theMountaineer Ticket Office and Team Store, new concession optionssuch as a 'Mountaineer Cafe,' 'Country Roads Pit Stop,' 'AlmostHeaven Bistro and Wild & Wonderful Canteen,' improved graphics,and, eventually, four times more [seating for disabledindividuals] than is currently offered during the second phase ofColiseum renovations tentatively slated for 2017," WVU stated in aMarch news release.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Little Hulton Man Dies of Mesothelioma-------------------------------------------------------Tom Rodgers, writing for Salford News, reported that the family ofan electrician from Little Hulton who died from terminal cancer isappealing for his work colleagues to come forward and help with aprobe into possible asbestos exposure.

Barry Walker was 71 when he passed away in July 2015.

He was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer of the body's celllinings -- just a few months before his death.

The condition is usually associated with prolonged exposure toasbestos dust or fibres.

His children Jacquelyn Whale and Steven Walker launched a casewith industrial disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell's Manchesteroffice to investigate whether steps could have been taken toprevent his death.

Solicitors are investigating whether their late father was exposedto asbestos while employed with CWS Engineering between 1965 and1967.

The law firm are also searching for former colleagues to gatherevidence on their working conditions.

Katrina London, an expert industrial disease lawyer at IrwinMitchell, said: "Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancerwhich is nearly always caused by asbestos exposure.

"The dangers of asbestos have been known for some time now andprotective measures should always be taken when workers come intocontact with this hazardous material.

"We are asking for his former colleagues to come forward toprovide information about the working conditions and asbestos atCWS Engineering. We are looking to speak to anyone who workedthere between 1965 and 1967, particularly anyone who remembersasbestos being present."

Barry's daughter, Jacquelyn, said: "My dad's death from thishorrible illness was extremely difficult for him and our family.

"It is extremely upsetting to hear that his death could have beenprevented. I can only hope that my dad's former work mates comeforward with any information they have".

ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Judge Trims $25-Mil. Award----------------------------------------------------Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reported that a New Yorkjudge refused to set aside a verdict holding the manufacturer of abrake grinding machine liable for a mechanic's exposure toasbestos, though she cut the jury's $25 million award by more thanhalf.

In a decision, Justice Cynthia Kern of state Supreme Court inManhattan rejected Hennessy Industries Inc's argument that it hadno legal duty to warn mechanic Walter Miller, now 64, about thedangers of asbestos in auto brakes. Hennessy owns the Ammco brandthat manufactured grinders, but did not make the brakesthemselves.

Randy Gabriel Dobard, 49, was arrested by the East Baton RougeParish Sheriff's Office and the DEQ Criminal InvestigationDivision after he filed the certificate on April 18. Investigationby DEQ showed that the document had a false certification number,false signatures and false training dates, according to a pressrelease from DEQ.

The trainer listed on the document, Southern Center forEnvironmental Justice, Inc., verified that no asbestos supervisortraining class had been taught on the days listed on the documentsent in by Dobard.

"The training provided by these contractors, and accredited byDEQ, is designed to protect both the workers and the public fromasbestos exposures during renovations and structure demolitions,"Chuck Carr Brown, DEQ secretary, said. "Submitting false trainingcredentials to an agency tasked with protecting human health andthe environment compromises the integrity of the program."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nearly 100 Cos. in Bankruptcy Due to Litigation----------------------------------------------------------------Thomas LoSavio, Esq. -- tlosavio@lowball.com -- at Low, Ball &Lynch, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that when asbestoslitigation became extremely costly to defend, to settle and to payjudgments, companies began filing for protection under theBankruptcy laws. In the three decades since Johns Manville and UNRIndustries filed the first asbestos bankruptcy cases, nearly 100companies have filed for bankruptcy protection due, in part, toasbestos litigation.

The vast majority of these companies utilized section 524(g) toreorganize and establish a bankruptcy trust to pay current andfuture asbestos claimants and channel claims away from thereorganized company. Today, many of these companies have emergedfrom the 524(g) bankruptcy process, leaving in their place dozensof trusts funded with tens of billions in assets to pay claims.Since 2006 more than 30 trusts have been created throughbankruptcy reorganization, funding the trust system with anadditional $20 billion in assets. From 2006 through 2012 theentire trust system has paid out over $15 billion to asbestosclaimants, with remaining assets as of year-end totaling over $18billion.[2] In addition, there is approximately $11 to $12 billionin proposed funding from bankruptcies still pending confirmation.

The asbestos trusts operate in parallel with the traditional tortsystem and offer only rudimentary reports on the claims theyreceive and pay. As a result, plaintiffs' attorneys are sometimesable to hide the fact that a single individual is making multipleclaims, citing different and contradictory exposure facts, againstmultiple trusts and solvent companies. This "double dipping"exposes innocent businesses to abusive lawsuits and draws down thetrusts' funds intended for other claimants.

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015 wasintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. BlakeFarenthold of Texas on January 26, 2015 and assigned to the HouseJudiciary Committee. A hearing on the FACT Act was held onFebruary 4, 2015 by the United States House Judiciary Subcommitteeon Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law. On May 14, thebill was voted out of the Judiciary Committee, 19-9, and was sentto be voted on by the full House of Representatives. In December2015, the FACT Act was added onto another U.S. House bill, H.R.1927 (the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act), and becameSection 3 of H.R. 1927. The bill was renamed the "Fairness inClass Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim TransparencyAct of 2016." On January 8, 2016, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives passed H.R. 1927 by a vote of 211 to 188. The votewas largely along party lines, with no Democrats voting for it andsixteen Republicans voting against it. As of January 11, 2016, theBill had been received in the Senate and referred to the Committeeon the Judiciary.

According to a Statement of Administration Policy, issued by theOffice of Management and Budget on January 6, 2016, "The [Obama]Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1927 becauseit would impair the enforcement of important federal laws,constrain access to the courts, and needlessly threaten theprivacy of asbestos victims." It continues, "if the President werepresented with H.R.1927, his senior advisers would recommend thathe veto the bill."

Similar versions of the FACT Act legislation have been passed theHouse of Representatives in previous Republican-controlledsessions, including in 2013. In 2013, although the bill passed theHouse, it was never voted on by the Senate.

In addition, several states have proposed legislation or changesto court rules that would mandate greater transparency for trustclaims. In 2012, Ohio became the first state in the nation toenact a law that requires plaintiffs to file and disclose trustclaims before proceeding to trial. Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee,Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have enacted similarlaws. The American Legislative Exchange Council ("ALEC") has aModel Asbestos Claims Transparency Act which can be found here:https://www.alec.org/model-policy/asbestos-claims-transparency-act/.

In California, trial courts in some jurisdictions requireplaintiffs to disclose bankruptcy trust claims during discoveryand some do not. Plaintiff attorneys are able to game the systemby filing trust claim "shells" with little or no substantiveexposure information. Another way plaintiffs avoid double-dippingis by filing bankruptcy trust claims after the lawsuit resolves.This deprives the court of jurisdiction over defense discoverymeant to uncover offsets due to trust payments.

California Assemblyman Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) introducedAssembly Bill No. 597, the Asbestos Tort Claim Trust TransparencyAct, which if passed would have required asbestos plaintiffs todisclose all asbestos bankruptcy trust claim documents in asbestostort actions. These mandated disclosures would include "anycommunications between the plaintiff and an asbestos trust and allproof of claims forms and supplementary or supporting materialssubmitted to or required by an asbestos trust." Plaintiffs wouldbe required to submit a sworn statement identifying the status ofeach claim, including all monies requested and received. Under theproposed legislation requiring such unilateral disclosures, itwould have been no longer necessary for defendants to seekdiscovery of relevant materials regarding any claim made byplaintiffs to an asbestos trust. Any materials disclosed byplaintiffs would be potentially admissible evidence to provealternate causation or to apportion fault for plaintiffs'injuries. However, after a major lobbying effort by theplaintiffs' asbestos bar, the legislation was withdrawn without avote.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunderland Father Dies of Mesothelioma-------------------------------------------------------Michael Muncaster, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that theheartbroken widow of a joiner who died after being exposed todeadly asbestos dust is appealing for help to trace his formercolleagues.

David Givens died from mesothelioma -- a terminal asbestos-relatedcancer -- in August last year, aged 63.

His wife, Pamela, 58, and their children Kelly, Christopher, Markand David are calling for help to find out how came to bediagnosed with the disease.

Mr Givens, from Sunderland , was a joiner and worked as a shopfitter from 1980 until his death.

Mrs Givens said: "Nothing is going to bring David back to us butasbestos has claimed two members of our family now and we justwant answers."

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that most often starts in thecovering of the lungs but can also start in the abdomen and it iscommonly associated with exposure to asbestos.

According to Cancer Research there were here were 2,667 new casesof mesothelioma diagnosed in the UK in 2013 and is most commonamong males aged 60 and over.

The Givens family instructed Irwin Mitchell to investigate how MrGivens came to be diagnosed with the asbestos-related cancer.

Roger Maddocks, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at IrwinMitchell, said: "Mesothelioma is a terrible terminal disease whichravages the sufferer in a short space of time.

"David had just three years left with his family after hisdiagnosis and they are still coming to terms with their loss.

"What they want now is to find out how David came into contactwith asbestos.

"Any information could prove vital in helping David's family toget the answers they deserve."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Bars Illinois Claims----------------------------------------------------In Wolfe, et al. v. Armstrong Int'l, Inc., et al., Cause No. 1522-CC11026 (Div. No. 4), the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis,22nd Circuit, entered an April 11, 2016, Order dismissing certaindefendants from an asbestos lawsuit on the basis that the claimsmade against those defendants were barred by the Illinois wrongfuldeath statute of limitations (740 ILCS 180.2), notwithstanding thefact that the plaintiffs had purportedly brought the action inMissouri court under the Missouri wrongful death statute (Section537.080 RSMo).

The plaintiffs' petition stated that the decedent had suffered hisinjury in Illinois, where he was a resident, and where all theplaintiffs reside. The claim was brought in Missouri court underthe Missouri wrongful death statute, which provides for a three-year statute of limitations. Conversely, the Illinois wrongfuldeath statute of limitations provides a two-year limit (which hadexpired in relation to the plaintiffs' claims).

Certain defendants then moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims onthe basis that the claims were properly considered to be madeunder the Illinois wrongful death statute and that, pursuant tothe Missouri borrowing statute, Section 516.190 RSMo. (providing"Whenever a cause of action has been fully barred by the laws ofthe state, territory or country in which it originated, said barshall be a complete defense [in Missouri courts]"), the two-yearIllinois wrongful death statute applied to preclude theplaintiffs' claims.

In response, plaintiffs contended that Section 516.300 RSMo.(providing "The provisions of sections 516.010 to 516.370[including Section 516.190 RSMo., i.e., the borrowing statute]shall not extend to any action which is or shall be otherwiselimited by statute; but such action shall be brought within thetime limited by such statute") applied to prevent the applicationof the borrowing statute because Missouri's wrongful death statutecontained a built-in, specific statute of limitations for wrongfuldeath actions (similar to that of Illinois), and therefore theclaim was "otherwise limited by statute" for purposes of Section516.300 RSMo. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted thatMissouri's three-year wrongful death statute of limitationsapplied, not Illinois' two-year statute of limitations.

Following the analysis in Thompson v. Crawford, 833 S.W.2d 868(Mo. Banc. 1992), the Circuit Court ruled that notwithstanding theplaintiffs' assertion to the contrary, the plaintiffs' claim wasproperly brought pursuant to the Illinois wrongful death statuteand that the two-year Illinois statute of limitations barred theplaintiffs' claim.

The Court explained that where a wrongful death statute contains abuilt-in statute of limitations, like that of the Illinoiswrongful death statute, the Court conducts a traditional conflictsof laws analysis under the Restatement (Second) of Conflict ofLaws (1971). Id. at 4. Here, under that analysis, the Illinoiswrongful death statute, including its built-in statute oflimitations, applied to bar the plaintiffs' claim.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Seeks Workers' Heirs for Payouts------------------------------------------------------------The Associated Press reported that a northeast Ohio courtdisbursing payouts from legal claims is looking for heirs tohundreds of rubber workers who died or became very ill because ofexposure to asbestos.

The Akron Beacon Journal reports Summit County Probate Court hasabout $2 million to distribute. Heirs have been found for many ofthe deceased workers with pending claims, but heirs of about 850workers still haven't been located. The list has been posted onthe court's website.

An $80 million fund was created in 2004 after insurance giantTravelers Cos. settled with lawyers for thousands of workers whohad asbestos-related claims.

That means payouts for about 19,000 cases around the country.Summit County has the most, with about 6,000.

Heirs were located in about half of the county's pending cases.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pittsburgh Corning Emerges from Ch. 11-------------------------------------------------------Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (www.pghcorning.com), a globalmanufacturer of sustainable, high performance glass based productsfor the building, energy and industrial markets, announces thatits Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization ("POR" or"Plan") has become effective as of April 27, 2016, and the Companyhas emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Pittsburgh Corning hasoperated under asbestos-related Chapter 11 protection since April16, 2000.

The Pittsburgh Corning Modified Third Amended POR establishes thePittsburgh Corning Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust.Scheduled to receive assets valued in excess of $3.5 billion, theTrust will be among the largest asbestos trusts in the country. Itassumes all asbestos-related liabilities related to PittsburghCorning and resolves all asbestos personal injury claims,including those filed in the future. The Trust is to be funded bycontributions of Pittsburgh Corning, its shareholders (PPGIndustries Inc. and Corning Incorporated) and participatinginsurance carriers. Prior to emergence from Chapter 11, PittsburghCorning and Pittsburgh Corning Europe were equity affiliates ofPPG Industries, Inc. and Corning, Inc. Effective today,Pittsburgh Corning Corporation will be owned by the PittsburghCorning Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust. PittsburghCorning Europe was not subject to Chapter 11, but its shares willbe contributed to the Trust as part of the Company's Plan ofReorganization by early June 2016.

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation is the foremost global supplier ofpremium quality, cellular glass insulation, with a uniquecombination of properties that make it one of the highestperforming insulations materials available. The Company'sFOAMGLAS(R) Insulation is used around the world as protection incommercial building envelopes and in critical industrialprocesses, including piping for oil and gas production and as thefoundations for liquid natural gas storage tanks. The Companyalso produces glass block products and windows for the residentialand architectural markets in the United States.

The Company's Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization wasconfirmed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania on May 24, 2013, and affirmed by the U.S. DistrictCourt of Pennsylvania on September 30, 2014. Appeals were finallyresolved on January 7, 2016, which allowed consummation of thePlan.

Between 1962 and 1972, Pittsburgh Corning manufactured, marketedand sold Unibestos, an asbestos pipe insulation product itacquired from Union Asbestos and Rubber Company. The Company wasnamed as a defendant in asbestos-related lawsuits, defending andresolving more than 200,000 claims. Pittsburgh Corning soughtChapter 11 protection in 2000, when it became apparent thatdefending and settling an additional 235,000 pending claims wouldexhaust Company resources before they could be resolved.

Pittsburgh Corning emerges from Chapter 11 protection havingreinvented its business. Since its inception almost 80 years ago,the privately held Pittsburgh Corning has grown to serve customersglobally. Together with Pittsburgh Corning Europe, the Companyoperates today as a single worldwide enterprise that is theworld's largest producer of environmentally advanced cellularglass insulation and systems. It operates insulation manufacturingfacilities in Sedalia, Missouri; Fresno, Texas; Tessenderlo,Belgium; Klasterec, Czech Republic, and recently, began productionat its new, wholly owned state-of-the-art facility in Yantai,China. Glass block products are produced in Port Allegany,Pennsylvania.

"During Chapter 11, Pittsburgh Corning operated with two majorobjectives. For the first five years, when emergence seemed to bea few years in the offing, the Company focused on protecting andpreserving the assets, which would become part of the AsbestosTrust. When it became apparent that Pittsburgh Corning's time inbankruptcy was going to be extended, our focus expanded to includestrategic actions designed to reinvent our business to betterserve customers worldwide and create a platform for sustainedprofitable growth for our future shareholders," said James R.Kane, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pittsburgh CorningCorporation. "Today, Pittsburgh Corning has achieved both goals.After 16 years of operating under Chapter 11, the AsbestosPersonal Injury Settlement Trust can begin helping people andfamilies. The Company has performed well and is eager to movepast Chapter 11 and toward a promising future."

Pittsburgh Corning has implemented strategic initiatives that haveimproved service to customers and created shareholder value.Significant capital investments have been made at plants in theUnited States and Europe to improve safety and productivity andreduce delivery time and costs. With the addition of the newoperation in China, the Company's base of operations has expandedto be closer to its customers on three continents.

"Pittsburgh Corning customers, employees, shareholders, suppliersand business partners have been instrumental in keeping theCompany stable, competitive and growing during the past 16 years,"said Kane. "We're grateful for all of our stakeholders, whoseunfaltering support has allowed Pittsburgh Corning to become aworld leader in the production of high performance, sustainable,glass-based building materials that conserve energy, protect theenvironment and enhance safety for millions of people around theworld."

Pittsburgh Corning FOAMGLAS(R) Insulation, in addition to itsenergy-conserving characteristics, offers exceptional strength, iswaterproof and will not burn. Billions of feet of FOAMGLAS(R)Insulation have been installed throughout the world in thousandsof buildings and industrial plants. Pittsburgh Corning offers afull range of FOAMGLAS(R) products and technical consultingservices for building and industrial applications, includingblocks in numerous densities, boards for various buildingapplications, fabricated and tapered components, complexassemblies and a range of adhesives, coatings, clips and jacketsthat create complete insulation systems. The Company providescustomer support, including technical experts and trainingcenters, on every continent.

Pittsburgh Corning consists of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation inPittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. inTessenderlo, Belgium. With headquarters in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania; European headquarters in Tessenderlo, Belgium, andAsian headquarters in Yantai, China, the Companies operateworldwide under a global management team committed to a common setof corporate values. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation is owned bythe Pittsburgh Corning Asbestos Personal Injury Trust. PittsburghCorning Europe will be contributed to the Trust by the currentshareholders in June 2016.

The companies produce sustainable, high-performance cellular glassFOAMGLAS(R) Insulation products for commercial and residentialbuildings and energy and industrial applications. FOAMGLAS(R)Insulation offers a unique combination of properties, making itone of the highest performing insulation materials available.Billions of board feet of FOAMGLAS(R) have been installedthroughout the world in thousands of buildings and industrialplants. Pittsburgh Corning also offers a wide range ofcomplementary accessory products including sealants, adhesives,and jacketing. The Company is the only United States manufacturerof premium glass block products and specialized architecturalwindow systems for commercial, institutional, government andresidential buildings. Pittsburgh Corning's products keep peoplesafe and provide lasting protection for homes, offices, publicfacilities and processing operations.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.